The Composition of Colonic Commensal Bacteria According to Anatomical Localization in Colorectal Cancer

Liuyang Zhao , Xiang Zhang , Tao Zuo , Jun Yu

Engineering ›› 2017, Vol. 3 ›› Issue (1) : 90 -97.

PDF (1097KB)
Engineering ›› 2017, Vol. 3 ›› Issue (1) : 90 -97. DOI: 10.1016/J.ENG.2017.01.012
Research
Research

The Composition of Colonic Commensal Bacteria According to Anatomical Localization in Colorectal Cancer

Author information +
History +
PDF (1097KB)

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a multistage disease resulting from complex factors, including genetic mutations, epigenetic changes, chronic inflammation, diet, and lifestyle. Recent accumulating evidence suggests that the gut microbiota is a new and important player in the development of CRC. Imbalance of the gut microbiota, especially dysregulated gut bacteria, contributes to colon cancer through mechanisms of inflammation, host defense modulations, oxidative stress, and alterations in bacterial-derived metabolism. Gut commensal bacteria are anatomically defined as four populations: luminal commensal bacteria, mucus-resident bacteria, epithelium-resident bacteria, and lymphoid tissue-resident commental bacteria. The bacterial flora that are harbored in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract vary both longitudinally and cross-sectionally by different anatomical localization. It is notable that the translocation of colonic commensal bacteria is closely related to CRC progression. CRC-associated bacteria can serve as a non-invasive and accurate biomarker for CRC diagnosis. In this review, we summarize recent findings on the oncogenic roles of gut bacteria with different anatomical localization in CRC progression.

Keywords

Microbiota / Colorectal cancer / Luminal commensal bacteria / Translocation / Biomarker

Cite this article

Download citation ▾
Liuyang Zhao, Xiang Zhang, Tao Zuo, Jun Yu. The Composition of Colonic Commensal Bacteria According to Anatomical Localization in Colorectal Cancer. Engineering, 2017, 3(1): 90-97 DOI:10.1016/J.ENG.2017.01.012

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户 忘记密码

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide [ 1]. Classic CRC is a malignant disease caused by a variety of factors, including genetic mutations, epigenetic changes, chronic inflammation, diet, and lifestyle [ 2, 3]. However, the molecular mechanisms involved in CRC tumorigenesis and progression are not yet fully understood. Accumulating evidence suggests that the gut microbiota contributes to CRC development [ 47].

The gut commensal microbiota, as a mutualistic ecosystem, plays multiple roles in maintaining host health and inducing host diseases [ 810]. Balance of the microbiota can result in the production of essential nutrients, cause prompt and efficient host nutrient absorption, aid in the development of a mature and competent immune system of the host, and prevent pathogen colonization [ 1117]. Dysbiosis of the gut microbiota can result in inflammation, barrier failure, mucosal tissue damage, and an altered microenvironment that favors the development of colon cancer [ 8, 18]. A number of studies have found that the microbiota can drive colorectal carcinogenesis by causing DNA damage, oncogene expression, and gene silencing [ 4, 10, 19, 20]. Due to the newly realized importance of the microbiota, the new model of CRC development takes the function of the microbiota into account.

Next-generation sequencing technologies (especially 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing and metagenomics sequencing) and other culture-independent methodologies have largely advanced our knowledge of the gut microbiota in both humans and mice [ 21, 22]. Thanks to these rapidly evolving technologies, the origin of the gut microbiota and the landscape of its evolution, as well as its relatedness to human physiology, are gradually being unraveled. The gastrointestinal (GI) tract, especially the terminal ileum and large intestine, is the major source of commensal microbiota and contains about 1014 archaeal and bacterial cells, as measured by 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing and by direct sequencing of genetic material [ 23, 24]. The overall composition of the GI bacteria varies within and between individuals due to differences in pH [ 25], oxygen [ 26], antimicrobial peptide (AMP) gradients [ 27], short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) [ 28], and intestinal motility [ 29]. The load of bacteria generally increases along the GI tract, ranging from 103–104 mL1 content in the stomach, duodenum, and jejunum (upper small intestine) to 108 mL1 in the ileum (lower small intestine) and up to 1011 mL1 in the colon [ 30, 31]. Furthermore, the types of bacteria in the GI tract also vary—both longitudinally, from the small intestine to the large intestine [ 26, 30], and cross-sectionally, depending on the anatomical location of the GI sections. In this review, we anatomically define gut commensal bacteria in the colon as four populations: ① luminal commensal bacteria, ② mucus-resident bacteria, ③ epithelium-resident bacteria, and ④ lymphoid tissue-resident commensal bacteria (Fig. 1). The dysregulated anatomical localization of colonic commensal bacteria is closely related to CRC [ 32]. In this contribution, we focus on the oncogenic roles of the aforementioned four categories of microbial populations in colorectal carcinogenesis.

Composition of gut commensal bacteria in the colon

Luminal commensal bacteria

In adult humans [ 33, 34] and mice [ 35], the luminal commensal microbiota is typically dominated by bacteria. The majority of research on the role of the microbiota in CRC focuses on the luminal commensal microbiota. The luminal commensal bacteria form a huge and complex ecosystem, with up to 1012 commensal bacteria comprising more than 1000 species [ 23, 24]. Eckburg et al. [ 33] found that more than 90% of the luminal commensal bacteria belong to the phyla Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, whereas Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, and Verrucomicrobia are minor constituents. Arumugam et al. [ 36] consistently reported that Firmicutes (39%), Bacteroidetes (25%), Actinobacteria (9%), and Proteobacteria (4%) are the predominant bacteria in the human distal gut, based on an analysis of 39 healthy adults from six nations around the world (Table 1) [ 2225, 28, 3749]. As there is a huge inter-individual variability in the composition of the gut luminal microbiota [ 50], the functions of predominant bacteria, especially when integrated with the whole microbial community, remain largely unknown.

The phylum Firmicutes is a collection of Gram-positive, spore-forming, obligate anaerobes and cocci- or rod-shaped bacteria, including the Enterococcaceae and Lactobacillaceae families and the Streptococcus genus. Our study and others identify Streptococcus bovis (S. bovis), a member of the Streptococcus genus, as being enriched in CRC patients and highly associated with CRC [ 5156]. The mechanism of S. bovis in promoting colorectal carcinogenesis is still unclear. However, Klein et al. [ 57] reported that most of the patients with S. bovis-induced endocarditis had colorectal adenomas or asymptomatic neoplasms, suggesting that S. bovis is involved in the early stage of CRC tumorigenesis. Similarly, another study found that the serum antigen levels of S. bovis-derived RpL7/L12 were increased in colon polyps and in stage I/II CRC patients, but not in late-stage patients with lymph node or distant metastasis [ 58]. All these findings implicate S. bovis as an initiator in the development of CRC. Conversely, colorectal neoplastic lesions may provide a specific niche for S. bovis; either it or its antigens can stimulate the production of inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-8 (IL-8), and promote the formation of hyper-proliferative aberrant colonic crypts [ 59, 60]. In addition, S. bovis was shown to be capable of causing a chronic inflammation in the colon by producing IL-8 and prostaglandins E2 (PGE2), which can also promote colon cancer development when normal epithelial cells constantly sense abnormal signals from bacterial components [ 61].

Fusobacterium is a genus of Gram-negative, non-spore-forming, anaerobic bacteria. From metagenome-wide association studies on fecal samples from CRC patients and healthy controls, our group found that Fusobacterium nucleatum (F. nucleatum), a typically representative Fusobacterium spp., can be a selected non-invasive biomarker for CRC diagnosis—a finding that was further validated in several ethnically different cohorts [ 62]. Moreover, increasing evidence shows that a close relationship exists between F. nucleatum and CRC. A study performed on colitis-associated, Apcmin/+, and transgenic mouse models also indicated that F. nucleatum can accelerate colorectal tumorigenesis [ 63]. Accumulated interests were recently shared on the mechanism of this association. It was shown that a greater amount of F. nucleatum in colorectal carcinoma tissue is associated with high degrees of microsatellite instability (MSI-high) and CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) [ 64]. However, more evidence suggests that innate and adaptive immunity participates in the process of tumor development [ 37]. In addition, it has been found that F. nucleatum induces mucin secretion and inflammatory cytokine tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α expression in direct contact with and/or during the invasion of colonic cells [ 65]. All these factors may predispose the host to adenomas or cancer development. F. nucleatum can also inhibit anti-tumor immunity and suppress the activities of natural killer cells, thereby promoting CRC development. A recent study identified fusobacterial lectin (Fap2) as a potent factor binding to tumor-expressed Gal-GalNAc and contributing to F. nucleatum-potentiated colorectal adenocarcinoma [ 38].

The phylum Bacteroidetes, formerly known as the CytophagaFlavobacteriumBacteroides (CFB), is composed of Gram-negative, non-spore-forming, anaerobic, and rod-shaped bacteria. The genus Bacteroides is the predominant taxon among them [ 36]. Bacteroides fragilis (B. fragilis), a member of the genus Bacteroides, is detected in up to 80% of adults and children, and comprises only approximately 0.5%–1% of the fecal microbiota [ 39, 66]. Recently, we performed metagenome-wide sequencing on fecal samples from 90 CRC patients and 78 healthy controls, and identified an over-representation of B. fragilis in patients with CRC compared with healthy controls [ 62]. Furthermore, we analyzed the gut mucosal microbiome across different stages of colorectal carcinogenesis by 16S rRNA gene sequencing [ 67]. The abundance of B. fragilis was found to be significantly higher in the carcinoma mucosae and adenoma mucosae, compared with the adjacent normal mucosae [ 67]. These studies imply that luminal Bacteroidetes has a role in the development of CRC.

Research on the underlying mechanism of B. fragilis as a carcinogenic agent focuses on its secreted B. fragilis toxin (BFT) and on the structure of capsular polysaccharide A (PSA). BFT, a zinc-dependent metalloprotease toxin, stimulates structural changes and even dissolution of the zonula occludens (tight junction) and zonula adherents, electron-dense structures that regulate the permeability of epithelial monolayers [ 68]. BFT also induces proteolysis of the tumor-suppressor protein E-cadherin, resulting in the induction of b-catenin nuclear localization, up-regulation of proto-oncogene c-myc transcription and translation, and cellular proliferation of colonic epithelial cancer cells [ 69]. Dissolution of the zonula occludens, zonula adherens, and E-cadherin increases the permeability of polarized colonic epithelial cell monolayers, which, prior to tumor development, is an early pathophysiological change associated with incipient CRC [ 70]. According to the production of BFT or not, B. fragilis is commonly categorized into nontoxigenic B. fragilis (NTBF) and enterotoxigenic B. fragilis (ETBF). Accumulating evidence shows a positive correlation between an increased prevalence of ETBF in the GI tract and colorectal cancer [ 7176]. Toprak et al.[ 71] reported that the enterotoxin (e.g., BFT) gene was more commonly identified in the stool of CRC patients compared with that of healthy individuals (38% vs. 12%, P = 0.009). Purified BFT from B. fragilis up-regulates spermine oxidase (SMO) in colonic epithelial cells, resulting in increased SMO-dependent generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), epithelial release of pro-inflammatory effectors, and DNA damage [ 75].

The bacteria localized in the gut lumen can cooperate to form multicellular communities and compete with each other for limited environmental resources. Treatment with vancomycin, an antibiotic that selectively targets Gram-positive bacteria, can also eliminate a majority of bacteria from Gram-negative Bacteroidetes in the cecal lumina, indicating crosstalk between Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria [ 77]. Cooperation between the luminal bacteria Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes has also been reported in mouse intestines [ 78]. With the presence of Bifidobacterium longum, a species of Actinobacteria phylum, the expression of glycoside hydrolases in Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, a species of Bacteroidetes phylum, was increased [ 78]. Moreover, bacteria hold the potential to inhibit the growth of their competitors by pH modification, control of motility, nutrient depletion, and the production of antimicrobial substances such as bacteriocins [ 79]. The Lactobacillus salivarius strain UCC118, which belongs to the Firmicutes phylum, produces a two-component bacteriocin (Abp118) with broad-spectrum activity against the bacteria of the Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes phyla (including the food-borne pathogen Listeria monocytogenes [ 80] and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [ 81]) in the colonic lumina.

Mucus-resident bacteria

The intestinal mucus is the first line of defense separating the luminal bacteria from underlying intestinal epithelium and systemic tissues. The thickness of colonic mucus is approximately 400 μm in humans [ 82] and 150 μm in mice [ 83]. Both of the two layers of colonic mucus are predominantly organized by various glycans and the large gel-forming mucin-2 (Muc2), which is secreted by goblet cells and Paneth cells [ 84]. The colonic inner mucus initially requires 6 weeks to become impenetrable when being challenged by bacteria in germ-free (GF) mice [ 85]. However, in both adult specific-pathogen-free (SPF) mice and GF mice, the 50 μm colonic inner mucus layer is constantly (hourly) renewed due to Muc2 secretion from goblet cells and Paneth cells, while the preformed mucus moves upward to become the outer mucus layer [ 86, 87]. The underlying mechanism by which mucus migrates upward from the inner mucus layer to the outer mucus layer is still unknown. In addition to the barrier function of the inner mucus, the loose outer mucus is a direct source of nutrients for special commensal bacteria, which possess a large amount of catabolic glycosidic enzymes to disassemble complex mucus glycans [ 40]. Only these special commensal bacteria can create a specialized niche for mucus-resident bacteria such as Akkermansia muciniphila and Mucispirillum spp. [ 41, 88]. This is probably a way for the host to geographically resist the luminal bacterial community, in part because the discriminant binding capacity of different bacteria to the loose mucus layer may be a determinant that contributes to the disparate spatial distribution of these bacteria species, thus maintaining microbial homeostasis in the colon.

Recently, Li et al. [ 42] found that outer colonic mucus-resident bacteria comprise more taxa from the Firmicutes phylum and the Deferribacteres phylum and less from the Bacteroidetes phylum, compared with luminal bacteria in C57BL6 mice by 16S sequencing. However, no significant difference exists between mucus-resident bacteria and luminal bacteria in the diversity of microbiotas. It is interesting that the species Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron and Escherichia coli, which are resident in the outer mucus, have a stronger potential to proliferate and to utilize resources (e.g., by recovering bioavailable iron and consuming mucus carbon sources), compared with the same species in the intestinal lumen [ 42]. Furthermore, the intrinsic mucus-resident bacteria can protect the host from pathogens by inhibiting physical contact between them [ 78, 81].

Epithelium-resident bacteria

Intestinal epithelial cells (IECs) form an additional mono-layered, physical barrier underlying the two layers of mucus barriers, and play a key role in maintaining equilibrium between the gut commensals and the host [ 89]. IECs include absorptive IECs and secretory IECs. Absorptive IECs are adapted for metabolic and digestive functions. Secretory IECs include enteroendocrine cells, goblet cells, and Paneth cells [ 90], which secrete mucins and various AMPs to establish a physical and biochemical barrier that modulates microbial contact with the epithelial surface and underlying immune cells [ 27]. Although the layer of IECs is generally recognized as a sterile area, accumulating studies show that various bacteria can attach to and even invade IECs [ 43, 44, 91]. Bacterial attachment to and invasion of IECs are regulated by two main mechanisms, namely the zipper and trigger mechanisms, which rely on the modification of cytoskeletal rearrangements and membrane extensions, and the activation of reorganization of the actin cytoskeleton at the plasma membrane [ 45]. It is a multi-step process for bacteria to adhere to and invade IECs. A multitude of adjacent and invasive bacteria types exist; herein, we primarily focus on adherent-invasive Escherichia coli (AIEC), a category of invasive bacteria residing in the gut that cause innate immune responses (Table 1).

AIEC is capable of translocating into IECs and replicating intracellularly. Researchers have shown that AIEC is closely related to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and that its abundance in inflamed regions also correlates to the severity of diseases [ 92, 93]. Moreover, AIEC plays a central role in the pathogenesis of CRC [ 46, 94]. The obvious difference between AIEC and S. bovis is that the pathogenic cyclomodulin-positive AIEC is more prevalent on the mucosa of patients with stages III/IV CRC than those with stage I. This finding suggests that AIEC is highly likely to be involved in the progression of carcinoma, especially at the late stage, and may be a prognostic factor [ 47]. Unlike non-pathogenic strains, AIEC strains harbor flagella and usually include a variety of FimH adhesin variants, hence allowing them to bind and invade IECs more efficiently [ 95]. These polarized IECs can secrete the pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-8 and chemokine CCL20, leading to the recruitment of macrophages and dendritic cells to the sites of infection with further secretions of interferon (IFN)-γ and TNF-α [ 96, 97]. Moreover, the binding of flagella to Toll-like receptor 5 (TLR5) in IECs is able to activate the classical NF-κB pathway [ 98]. In turn, these molecular patterns cooperatively control the transcription of IL-8 and pro-angiogenic factors contributing to inflammation and vascularization, as well as tumorigenesis [ 99].

Lymphoid tissue-resident commensal bacteria

The gut-associated lymphoid tissues (GALTs) include Peyer’s patches (PPs), isolated lymphoid follicles (ILFs), mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs), and intestinal lamina propria (ILP) [ 100]. The underlying area of the intestinal epithelium was previously thought to be sterile in healthy mammals. Although pathogenic bacteria can penetrate the inner mucus, evade AMPs and immunoglobulin-A (IgA) killing, and translocate across the intestinal epithelium, they can still be quickly killed by lamina propria macrophages or other lymphoid cells in the GALTs. However, recent studies suggest that a special group of commensal bacteria can not only colonize the GALTs, but also replicate in the GALTs of healthy mammals by utilizing nutrients from lymphoid tissue [ 48, 49, 101, 102]. Furthermore, the composition of lymphoid tissue-resident commensal bacteria (LRCs) is largely different from those of the lumen-resident bacteria and epithelium-associated bacteria [ 102]. Obata et al. [ 48] found that PPs are the main lymphoid tissue colonized by commensal bacteria. Absolutely different bacteria were found to populate the surface of the PPs (i.e., mainly segmented filamentous bacteria (SFB) and Lactobacillus spp.) compared with the interior of the PPs (i.e., mainly Alcaligenes spp. and Ochrobactrum spp.) (Table 1). Furthermore, Alcaligenes spp. was found to be the dominant bacteria in the PP-dendritic cells (DCs) and MLN-DCs [ 48]. GALTs regulate special LRCs (mainly Alcaligenes) to prevent the systemic inflammation associated with Crohn’s disease and progressive hepatitis C virus infection [ 48, 49, 102]. In contrast, LRCs modulate the cytokine production of murine DC and promote the responses of tissue-specific Th17 cells and group 3 innate lymphoid cells [ 102].

Mechanism of the colonic microbiota in the progression of colorectal cancer

The colonic microbiota influences the progression of colorectal cancer through mucosal inflammation

One mechanism by which the colonic microbiota influences the progression of CRC is via the modulation of mucosal inflammation. The formation of CRC derived from normal colonic epithelia involves a series of inflammatory factors that enable and shape a tumorigenic microenvironment. Studies have shown that the development of dysplasia and CRC is profoundly influenced by the inflammatory state of the colon. In patients with IBD, constant inflammation of the colon increases the susceptibility to develop CRC [ 103, 104]. These inflammation conditions have also been associated with gut microbiota dysbiosis. During the development of a tumor, the permeability of the physical barriers between the epithelium, which separate the microbiota from the lamina propria, is increased [ 89, 105]. Barrier disruption results in bacterial translocation and leads to the exposure of microbial compounds to both antigen-presenting cells and epithelial cells; thus, the activation of immune-signaling pathways by bacterial stimuli contributes to a distortion of homeostasis that initiates a proneoplastic inflammatory milieu. Recognition of microbes and of microbial-derived molecules plays a pivotal role in the inflammation and induction of a pro-tumorigenic milieu in CRC. Among the mechanisms of action for the pro-inflammatory role of bacteria in CRC development, prominent mechanisms include inflammasome activation [ 106] and activation of the NF-κB pathway [ 107], both of which respond to microbial stimuli promoting cell survival and proliferation. In addition to the bacterial-sensing mechanisms in epithelial cells, T cell subpopulations such as Th17 cells and regulatory T cells can modulate inflammation within the GI tract, thereby playing an important role in inflammation-associated CRC [ 108, 109]. It is interesting that the proportion and function of these cells are affected by the gut microbiota, further substantiating the important role of microbiota-mediated inflammation in CRC development.

The colonic microbiota induces colorectal cancer progression through dysbiosis

The cause or effect relationship between the gut microbiota and CRC progression has come under debate. It is not possible to definitively conclude that a causal association exists, because much of the evidence merely implies a relation, without clearly indicating whether the dysbiosis is a primary cause or a secondary outcome. However, some studies have shown that mouse and rat models of intestinal tumorigenesis exhibited decreased tumor loads with the depletion of microbes, compared with mouse and rat models raised under conventional conditions [ 76, 110, 111]. Recent research has demonstrated that specific members of the gut microbiota contribute to the development of CRC [ 5, 7]. It is notable that the tumor milieu is populated by immune cells, which play a role in both pro- and anti-tumor immunity. These immune cells can be influenced by the gut-resident microbiota as well, even after progression to CRC. Therefore, rather than being a causal relationship, the intricate interactions between the microbiota, the immune system, and CRC are a multifaceted network that warrants further investigation.

The colonic microbiota contributes to the progression of colorectal cancer through bacterial metabolites

Accumulating evidence suggests that not only the gut microbiota but also its metabolites contribute to the pathogenesis of CRC. The SCFAs acetate, propionate, and butyrate can function as suppression factors in cancer, whereas other subsets of microbial metabolites, such as secondary bile acids, promote tumorigenesis. All these metabolites have been substantially reviewed in other literature [ 12, 112]. In this section, we aim to briefly discuss the relations between microbial metabolism, diet, and CRC.

High protein intake results in an increase in the fermentation of diet-derived protein in the colon, as indicated by the increase in amino-acid-derived products such as branched-chain fatty acids and phenylacetic acid [ 113, 114]. A small portion of the gut bacteria community, including some Bacteroidetes spp. and Firmicutes spp., can metabolize aromatic amino acids to produce bioactive compounds, consisting of indoles, phenols, p-cresol, and phenylacetic acid. These nitrogenous products, and N-nitroso compounds in particular, have the capacity to promote carcinogenesis through DNA alkylation that results in mutations. There is a positive correlation between the intake of dietary N-nitroso compounds and CRC [ 115]. Increases in fecal N-nitroso compounds have been observed in individuals with high-protein diets. Ammonia, another product of protein fermentation, is a carcinogenic agent as well, but at low concentrations; it has been shown to increase mucosal damage and the amount of colonic adenocarcinoma in a rat model [ 116]. Hydrogen sulfide is a product generated in the distal gut via the reduction of diet-derived sulfate and the metabolism of other compounds. Sulfate-reducing bacteria, such as Desulfovibrio spp., are detectable in low abundances in healthy individuals, and are capable of using lactate as a co-substrate for sulfide formation [ 117]. Sulfide is toxic to colonocytes and represses butyrate oxidation, leading to the disruption of the colonocyte barrier [ 118]. Sulfide is genotoxic to normal human cell lines, in which the mechanism of DNA damage engages ROS [ 75]. Polyamines, metabolites from bacteria or the diet, are also toxic and are associated with cancer. Oxidative stress due to polyamine catabolism is thought to be the underlying mechanism of this relation [ 119]. In addition, specific gut bacteria, B. fragilis, up-regulate polyamine production by host cells [ 120]. Excessive consumption of ethanol has been widely accepted as an important risk factor for cancer [ 121], and microbial metabolism may add to its toxicity. Many anaerobic bacteria can produce ethanol. Although ethanol itself is not regarded as a potent carcinogen, its oxidation product, acetaldehyde, is considered to be highly carcinogenic, causing an array of effects ranging from the degradation of the vitamin folate to DNA damage [ 122].

The translocation of commensal bacteria in colorectal cancer

In addition to dysbiosis, the dysregulated localization of commensal bacteria plays a crucial role in CRC development. A common bacteria translocation route is from the gut to MLNs [ 104]. In a prospective cohort study on 158 CRC patients for 5 years, CRC patients with bacterial translocation in the mesenteric lymph nodes had a worse rate of disease-specific survival and disease-free survival than those without [ 32]. Moreover, bacterial translocation is a specific predictor of the survival of CRC patients [ 32]. Lescut et al. [ 123] reported that the dysregulated bacteria in the pericolonic lymph nodes adjacent to the cancer are the major bacterial translocation resources in CRC patients. Moreover, CRC patients with bacterial translocation are prone to exhibit cachexia [ 124]. These studies indicate that targeting the dysregulated localization of commensal bacteria is a promising approach for CRC prevention and treatment.

Fecal bacteria as a biomarker in colorectal cancer diagnosis

Other studies by our group recently indicated that stool-based CRC-associated bacteria could serve as a non-invasive biomarker for CRC diagnosis [ 125, 126]. Using probe-based duplex quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assays, we examined CRC-related bacteria (F. nucleatum, Bacteroides clarus (B. clarus), Roseburia intestinalis (R. intestinalis), Clostridium hathewayi (C. hathewayi), and m7) in stool samples of 203 CRC patients and 236 healthy controls. The combination of F. nucleatum + Ch + m7 + Bc showed high diagnostic ability, with an area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.886 [ 125]. By the qPCR analysis of 104 patients with CRC, 103 patients with advanced adenoma, and 102 healthy controls, we also identified that the combination of F. nucleatum + fecal immunochemical test (FIT) showed high sensitivity (92.3%) and an AUC of 0.95 in detecting CRC [ 126]. High abundances of F. nucleatum and B. fragilis have been identified as independent indicators of poor survival in CRC patients [ 127]. FadA, the unique adhesin of F. nucleatum, has also been reported to be a potential diagnostic target for CRC. The expression levels of the fadA gene in colon tissue from patients with adenomas and adenocarcinomas are significantly higher than those in normal individuals [ 128]. These studies suggest that probing the gut microbiota may provide a non-invasive, accurate, and affordable diagnosis of CRC.

Conclusions and perspective

The four populations of gut commensal bacteria manifest different compositions and various functions in their differential contributions to the interactions between host and microbes. The whole GI tract is a huge mutualistic ecosystem. Changes in each bacteria group could potentially form a cascade reaction with other bacteria groups. By dividing the GI commensal bacteria into more groups, we can understand the molecular mechanisms of action for special bacteria groups more explicitly. Dysregulated localization of bacteria is closely associated with CRC, and fecal bacteria may be valuable diagnosis markers for CRC. Furthermore, the gut microbiota may be a therapeutic target to inhibit CRC proliferation and metastasis.

References

[1]

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66(1):7–30.

[2]

Hou TY, Davidson LA, Kim E, Fan YY, Fuentes NR, Triff K, et alNutrient-gene interaction in colon cancer, from the membrane to cellular physiology. Annu Rev Nutr 2016;36:543–70.

[3]

Grady WM, Markowitz SD. Genetic and epigenetic alterations in colon cancer. Annu Rev Genom Hum G 2002;3(1):101–28.

[4]

Garrett WS. Cancer and the microbiota. Science 2015;348(6230):80–6.

[5]

Mima K, Nishihara R, Qian ZR, Cao Y, Sukawa Y, Nowak JA, et alFusobacterium nucleatumin colorectal carcinoma tissue and patient prognosis. Gut. Epub 2015 Aug 26.

[6]

Bhattacharya N, Yuan R, Prestwood TR, Penny HL, DiMaio MA, Reticker-Flynn NE, et alNormalizing microbiota-induced retinoic acid deficiency stimulates protective CD8+ T cell-mediated immunity in colorectal cancer. Immunity 2016;45(3):641–55.

[7]

Gur C, Ibrahim Y, Isaacson B, Yamin R, Abed J, Gamliel M, et alBinding of the Fap2 protein of Fusobacterium nucleatum to human inhibitory receptor TIGIT protects tumors from immune cell attack. Immunity 2015;42(2):344–55.

[8]

Brennan CA, Garrett WS. Gut microbiota, inflammation, and colorectal cancer. Annu Rev Microbiol 2016;70:395–411.

[9]

Belkaid Y, Hand TW. Role of the microbiota in immunity and inflammation. Cell 2014;157(1):121–41.

[10]

Arthur JC, Perez-Chanona E, Mühlbauer M, Tomkovich S, Uronis JM, Fan TJ, et alIntestinal inflammation targets cancer-inducing activity of the microbiota. Science 2012;338(6103):120–3.

[11]

Irrazábal T, Belcheva A, Girardin SE, Martin A, Philpott DJ. The multifaceted role of the intestinal microbiota in colon cancer. Mol Cell 2014;54(2):309–20.

[12]

Sears CL, Garrett WS. Microbes, microbiota, and colon cancer. Cell Host Microbe 2014;15(3):317–28.

[13]

Collins JW, Keeney KM, Crepin VE, Rathinam VAK, Fitzgerald KA, Finlay BB, et alCitrobacter rodentium: infection, inflammation and the microbiota. Nat Rev Microbiol 2014;12(9):612–23.

[14]

Chung HC, Pamp SJ, Hill JA, Surana NK, Edelman SM, Troy EB, et alGut immune maturation depends on colonization with a host-specific microbiota. Cell 2012;149(7):1578–93.

[15]

Duerkop BA, Vaishnava S, Hooper LV. Immune responses to the microbiota at the intestinal mucosal surface. Immunity 2009;31(3):368–76.

[16]

Geuking MB, Cahenzli J, Lawson MAE, Ng DCK, Slack E, Hapfelmeier S, et alIntestinal bacterial colonization induces mutualistic regulatory T cell responses. Immunity 2011;34(5):794–806.

[17]

Sellon RK, Tonkonogy S, Schultz M, Dieleman LA, Grenther W, Balish E, et alResident enteric bacteria are necessary for development of spontaneous colitis and immune system activation in interleukin-10-deficient mice. Infect Immun 1998;66(11):5224–31.

[18]

Zaiss MM, Rapin A, Lebon L, Dubey LK, Mosconi I, Sarter K, et alThe intestinal microbiota contributes to the ability of helminths to modulate allergic inflammation. Immunity 2015;43(5):998–1010.

[19]

Wang X, Yang Y, Moore DR, Nimmo SL, Lightfoot SA, Huycke MM. 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal mediates genotoxicity and bystander effects caused by Enterococcus faecalis-infected macrophages. Gastroenterology 2012;142(3):543–51.

[20]

Yang Y, Wang X, Huycke T, Moore DR, Lightfoot SA, Huycke MM. Colon macrophages polarized by commensal bacteria cause colitis and cancer through the bystander effect. Transl Oncol 2013;6(5):596–606.

[21]

Metzker ML. Sequencing technologies—the next generation. Nat Rev Genet 2010;11(1):31–46.

[22]

Schuster SC. Next-generation sequencing transforms today’s biology. Nat Methods 2008;5(1):16–8.

[23]

Qin J, Li R, Raes J, Arumugam M, Burgdorf KS, Manichanh C, et alA human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature 2010;464(7285):59–65.

[24]

Sender R, Fuchs S, Milo R. Revised estimates for the number of human and bacteria cells in the body. PLoS Biol 2016;14(8):e1002533.

[25]

Evans DF, Pye G, Bramley R, Clark AG, Dyson TJ, Hardcastle JD. Measurement of gastrointestinal pH profiles in normal ambulant human subjects. Gut 1988;29(8):1035–41.

[26]

He G, Shankar RA, Chzhan M, Samouilov A, Kuppusamy P, Zweier JL. Noninvasive measurement of anatomic structure and intraluminal oxygenation in the gastrointestinal tract of living mice with spatial and spectral EPR imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999;96(8):4586–91.

[27]

Gallo RL, Hooper LV. Epithelial antimicrobial defence of the skin and intestine. Nat Rev Immunol 2012;12(7):503–16.

[28]

Maslowski KM, Vieira AT, Ng A, Kranich J, Sierro F, Yu D, et alRegulation of inflammatory responses by gut microbiota and chemoattractant receptor GPR43. Nature 2009;461(7268):1282–6.

[29]

Rao SS, Kuo B, McCallum RW, Chey WD, DiBaise JK, Hasler WL, et alInvestigation of colonic and whole-gut transit with wireless motility capsule and radiopaque markers in constipation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;7(5):537–44.

[30]

Wlodarska M, Kostic AD, Xavier RJ. An integrative view of microbiome-host interactions in inflammatory bowel diseases. Cell Host Microbe 2015;17(5):577–91.

[31]

Bianconi E, Piovesan A, Facchin F, Beraudi A, Casadei R, Frabetti F, et alAn estimation of the number of cells in the human body. Ann Hum Biol 2013;40(6):463–71.

[32]

Chin KF, Kallam R, O’Boyle C, MacFie J. Bacterial translocation may influence the long-term survival in colorectal cancer patients. Dis Colon Rectum 2007;50(3):323–30.

[33]

Eckburg PB, Bik EM, Bernstein CN, Purdom E, Dethlefsen L, Sargent M, et alDiversity of the human intestinal microbial flora. Science 2005;308(5728):1635–8.

[34]

Lozupone CA, Stombaugh JI, Gordon JI, Jansson JK, Knight R. Diversity, stability and resilience of the human gut microbiota. Nature 2012;489(7415):220–30.

[35]

Hill DA, Hoffmann C, Abt MC, Du Y, Kobuley D, Kirn TJ, et alMetagenomic analyses reveal antibiotic-induced temporal and spatial changes in intestinal microbiota with associated alterations in immune cell homeostasis. Mucosal Immunol 2010;3(2):148–58.

[36]

Arumugam M, Raes J, Pelletier E, Le Paslier D, Yamada T, Mende DR, et alEnterotypes of the human gut microbiome. Nature 2011;473(7346):174–80.

[37]

Nosho K, Sukawa Y, Adachi Y, Ito M, Mitsuhashi K, Kurihara H, et alAssociation of Fusobacterium nucleatum with immunity and molecular alterations in colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2016;22(2):557–66.

[38]

Abed J, Emgård JE, Zamir G, Faroja M, Almogy G, Grenov A, et alFap2 mediates Fusobacterium nucleatum colorectal adenocarcinoma enrichment by binding to tumor-expressed Gal-GalNAc. Cell Host Microbe 2016;20(2):215–25.

[39]

Huang JY, Lee SM, Mazmanian SK. The human commensal Bacteroides fragilis binds intestinal mucin. Anaerobe 2011;17(4):137–41.

[40]

Corfield AP. Mucins: a biologically relevant glycan barrier in mucosal protection. Bba-Gen Subjects 2015;1850(1):236–52.

[41]

Robertson BR, O’Rourke JL, Neilan BA, Vandamme P, On SLW, Fox JG, et alMucispirillum schaedleri gen. nov., sp nov., a spiral-shaped bacterium colonizing the mucus layer of the gastrointestinal tract of laboratory rodents. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005;55(3):1199–204.

[42]

Li H, Limenitakis JP, Fuhrer T, Geuking MB, Lawson MA, Wyss M, et alThe outer mucus layer hosts a distinct intestinal microbial niche. Nat Commun 2015;6:8292.

[43]

Atarashi K, Tanoue T, Oshima K, Suda W, Nagano Y, Nishikawa H, et alTreg induction by a rationally selected mixture of Clostridia strains from the human microbiota. Nature 2013;500(7461):232–6.

[44]

Brook I, Myhal ML. Adherence of Bacteroides fragilis group species. Infect Immun 1991;59(2):742–4.

[45]

Cossart P, Sansonetti PJ. Bacterial invasion: the paradigms of enteroinvasive pathogens. Science 2004;304(5668):242–8.

[46]

Martin HM, Campbell BJ, Hart CA, Mpofu C, Nayar M, Singh R, et alEnhanced Escherichia coli adherence and invasion in Crohn’s disease and colon cancer. Gastroenterology 2004;127(1):80–93.

[47]

Bonnet M, Buc E, Sauvanet P, Darcha C, Dubois D, Pereira B, et alColonization of the human gut by E. coli and colorectal cancer risk. Clin Cancer Res 2014;20(4):859–67.

[48]

Obata T, Goto Y, Kunisawa J, Sato S, Sakamoto M, Setoyama H, et alIndigenous opportunistic bacteria inhabit mammalian gut-associated lymphoid tissues and share a mucosal antibody-mediated symbiosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010;107(16):7419–24.

[49]

Sonnenberg GF, Monticelli LA, Alenghat T, Fung TC, Hutnick NA, Kunisawa J, et alInnate lymphoid cells promote anatomical containment of lymphoid-resident commensal bacteria. Science 2012;336(6086):1321–5.

[50]

Wu GD, Chen J, Hoffmann C, Bittinger K, Chen YY, Keilbaugh SA, et alLinking long-term dietary patterns with gut microbial enterotypes. Science 2011;334(6052):105–8.

[51]

Corredoira J, Alonso MP, Coira A, Casariego E, Arias C, Alonso D, et alCharacteristics of Streptococcus bovis endocarditis and its differences with Streptococcus viridans endocarditis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2008;27(4):285–91.

[52]

Lazarovitch T, Shango M, Levine M, Brusovansky R, Akins R, Hayakawa K, et alThe relationship between the new taxonomy of Streptococcus bovis and its clonality to colon cancer, endocarditis, and biliary disease. Infection 2013;41(2):329–37.

[53]

Gupta A, Madani R, Mukhtar H. Streptococcus bovis endocarditis, a silent sign for colonic tumour. Colorectal Dis 2010;12(3):164–71.

[54]

Harrison S, Benziger H, Koerner R. Streptococcus bovis infections, colorectal cancer and liver dysfunction. ANZ J Surg 2011;81(11):762–3.

[55]

McMahon AJ, Auld CD, Dale BA, Walls AD, McCormick JS. Streptococcus bovis septicaemia associated with uncomplicated colonic carcinoma. Br J Surg 1991;78(7):883–5.

[56]

Wending GK, Metzger PP, Dozois EJ, Chua HK, Krishna M. Unusual bacterial infections and colorectal carcinoma—Streptococcus bovis and Clostridium septicum: report of three cases. Dis Colon Rectum 2006;49(8):1223–7.

[57]

Klein RS, Catalano MT, Edberg SC, Casey JI, Steigbigel NH. Streptococcus bovis septicemia and carcinoma of the colon. Ann Intern Med 1979;91(4):560–2.

[58]

Boleij A, Roelofs R, Schaeps RM, Schülin T, Glaser P, Swinkels DW, et alIncreased exposure to bacterial antigen RpL7/L12 in early stage colorectal cancer patients. Cancer 2010;116(17):4014–22.

[59]

Ellmerich S, Schöller M, Duranton B, Gosse F, Galluser M, Klein JP, et alPromotion of intestinal carcinogenesis by Streptococcus bovis. Carcinogenesis 2000;21(4):753–6.

[60]

Tjalsma H, Schöller-Guinard M, Lasonder E, Ruers TJ, Willems HL, Swinkels DW. Profiling the humoral immune response in colon cancer patients: diagnostic antigens from Streptococcus bovis. Int J Cancer 2006;119(9):2127–35.

[61]

Biarc J, Nguyen IS, Pini A, Gosse F, Richert S, Thierse D, et alCarcinogenic properties of proteins with pro-inflammatory activity from Streptococcus infantarius (formerly S.bovis). Carcinogenesis 2004;25(8):1477–84.

[62]

Yu J, Feng Q, Wong SH, Zhang D, Liang QY, Qin Y, et alMetagenomic analysis of faecal microbiome as a tool towards targeted non-invasive biomarkers for colorectal cancer. Gut 2017;66(1):70–8.

[63]

Kostic AD, Chun E, Robertson L, Glickman JN, Gallini CA, Michaud M, et alFusobacterium nucleatum potentiates intestinal tumorigenesis and modulates the tumor-immune microenvironment. Cell Host Microbe 2013;14(2):207–15.

[64]

Tahara T, Yamamoto E, Suzuki H, Maruyama R, Chung W, Garriga J, et alFusobacterium in colonic flora and molecular features of colorectal carcinoma. Cancer Res 2014;74(5):1311–8.

[65]

Dharmani P, Strauss J, Ambrose C, Allen-Vercoe E, Chadee K. Fusobacteriumnucleatum infection of colonic cells stimulates MUC2 mucin and tumor necrosis factor alpha. Infect Immun 2011;79(7):2597–607.

[66]

Macfarlane S, Woodmansey EJ, Macfarlane GT. Colonization of mucin by human intestinal bacteria and establishment of biofilm communities in a two-stage continuous culture system. Appl Environ Microbiol 2005;71(11):7483–92.

[67]

Nakatsu G, Li X, Zhou H, Sheng J, Wong SH, Wu W, et alGut mucosal microbiome across stages of colorectal carcinogenesis. Nat Commun 2015;6:8727.

[68]

Chambers FG, Koshy SS, Saidi RF, Clark DP, Moore RD, Sears CL. Bacteroides fragilistoxin exhibits polar activity on monolayers of human intestinal epithelial cells (T84 cells) in vitro. Infect Immun 1997;65(9):3561–70.

[69]

Wu S, Rhee KJ, Zhang M, Franco A, Sears CL. Bacteroides fragilis toxin stimulates intestinal epithelial cell shedding and gamma-secretase-dependent E-cadherin cleavage. J Cell Sci 2007;120:1944–52.

[70]

Soler AP, Miller RD, Laughlin KV, Carp NZ, Klurfeld DM, Mullin JM. Increased tight junctional permeability is associated with the development of colon cancer. Carcinogenesis 1999;20(8):1425–32.

[71]

Toprak NU, Yagci A, Gulluoglu BM, Akin ML, Demirkalem P, Celenk T, et alA possible role of Bacteroides fragilis enterotoxin in the aetiology of colorectal cancer. Clin Microbiol Infect 2006;12(8):782–6.

[72]

Boleij A, Hechenbleikner EM, Goodwin AC, Badani R, Stein EM, Lazarev MG, et alThe Bacteroides fragilis toxin gene is prevalent in the colon mucosa of colorectal cancer patients. Clin Infect Dis 2015;60(2):208–15.

[73]

Sobhani I, Tap J, Roudot-Thoraval F, Roperch JP, Letulle S, Langella P, et alMicrobial dysbiosis in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. PLoS One 2011;6(1):e16393.

[74]

Wang T, Cai G, Qiu Y, Fei N, Zhang M, Pang X, et alStructural segregation of gut microbiota between colorectal cancer patients and healthy volunteers. ISME J 2012;6(2):320–9.

[75]

Goodwin AC, Destefano Shields CE, Wu S, Huso DL, Wu X, Murray-Stewart TR, et alPolyamine catabolism contributes to enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis-induced colon tumorigenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011;108(37):15354–9.

[76]

Housseau F, Sears CL. Enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis (ETBF)-mediated colitis in Min (Apc+/−) mice: a human commensal-based murine model of colon carcinogenesis. Cell Cycle 2010;9(1):3–5.

[77]

Ubeda C, Taur Y, Jenq RR, Equinda MJ, Son T, Samstein M, et alVancomycin-resistant Enterococcus domination of intestinal microbiota is enabled by antibiotic treatment in mice and precedes bloodstream invasion in humans. J Clin Invest 2010;120(12):4332–41.

[78]

Sonnenburg JL, Chen CT, Gordon JI. Genomic and metabolic studies of the impact of probiotics on a model gut symbiont and host. PLoS Biol 2006;4(12):e413.

[79]

Thompson-Chagoyán OC, Maldonado J, Gil A. Aetiology of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD): role of intestinal microbiota and gut-associated lymphoid tissue immune response. Clin Nutr 2005;24(3):339–52.

[80]

Corr SC, Li Y, Riedel CU, O’Toole PW, Hill C, Gahan CG. Bacteriocin production as a mechanism for the antiinfective activity of Lactobacillus salivarius UCC118. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007;104(18):7617–21.

[81]

Dunne C, Murphy L, Flynn S, O’Mahony L, O’Halloran S, Feeney M, et alProbiotics: from myth to reality. Demonstration of functionality in animal models of disease and in human clinical trials. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 1999;76(1):279–92.

[82]

Johansson MEV, Gustafsson JK, Holmén-Larsson J, Jabbar KS, Xia L, Xu H, et alBacteria penetrate the normally impenetrable inner colon mucus layer in both murine colitis models and patients with ulcerative colitis. Gut 2014;63(2):281–91.

[83]

Johansson MEV, Phillipson M, Petersson J, Velcich A, Holm L, Hansson GC. The inner of the two Muc2 mucin-dependent mucus layers in colon is devoid of bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008;105(39):15064–9.

[84]

Johansson MEV, Hansson GC. Immunological aspects of intestinal mucus and mucins. Nat Rev Immunol 2016;16(10):639–49.

[85]

Johansson ME, Jakobsson HE, Holmén-Larsson J, Schütte A, Ermund A, Rodriguez-Piñeiro AM, et alNormalization of host intestinal mucus layers requires long-term microbial colonization. Cell Host Microbe 2015;18(5):582–92.

[86]

Johansson MEV. Fast renewal of the distal colonic mucus layers by the surface goblet cells as measured by in vivo labeling of mucin glycoproteins. PLoS One 2012;7(7):e41009.

[87]

Jakobsson HE, Rodríguez-Piñeiro AM, Schütte A, Ermund A, Boysen P, Bemark M, et alThe composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier. EMBO Rep 2015;16(2):164–77.

[88]

Derrien M, Collado MC, Ben-Amor K, Salminen S, de Vos WM. The mucin degrader Akkermansia muciniphila is an abundant resident of the human intestinal tract. Appl Environ Microbiol 2008;74(5):1646–8.

[89]

Peterson LW, Artis D. Intestinal epithelial cells: regulators of barrier function and immune homeostasis. Nat Rev Immunol 2014;14(3):141–53.

[90]

Yang Q, Bermingham NA, Finegold MJ, Zoghbi HY. Requirement of Math1 for secretory cell lineage commitment in the mouse intestine. Science 2001;294(5549):2155–8.

[91]

Gaboriau-Routhiau V, Rakotobe S, Lécuyer E, Mulder I, Lan A, Bridonneau C, et alThe key role of segmented filamentous bacteria in the coordinated maturation of gut helper T cell responses. Immunity 2009;31(4):677–89.

[92]

Rolhion N, Darfeuille-Michaud A. Adherent-invasive Escherichia coli in inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2007;13(10):1277–83.

[93]

Baumgart M, Dogan B, Rishniw M, Weitzman G, Bosworth B, Yantiss R, et alCulture independent analysis of ileal mucosa reveals a selective increase in invasive Escherichia coli of novel phylogeny relative to depletion of Clostridiales in Crohn’s disease involving the ileum. ISME J 2007;1(5):403–18.

[94]

Swidsinski A, Khilkin M, Kerjaschki D, Schreiber S, Ortner M, Weber J, et alAssociation between intraepithelial Escherichia coli and colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 1998;115(2):281–6.

[95]

Dreux N, Denizot J, Martinez-Medina M, Mellmann A, Billig M, Kisiela D, et alPoint mutations in FimH adhesin of Crohn’s disease-associated adherent-invasive Escherichia coli enhance intestinal inflammatory response. PLoS Pathog 2013;9(1):e1003141.

[96]

Eaves-Pyles T, Allen CA, Taormina J, Swidsinski A, Tutt CB, Jezek GE, et alEscherichia coli isolated from a Crohn’s disease patient adheres, invades, and induces inflammatory responses in polarized intestinal epithelial cells. Int J Med Microbiol 2008;298(5–6):397–409.

[97]

Subramanian S, Rhodes JM, Hart CA, Tam B, Roberts CL, Smith SL, et alCharacterization, of epithelial IL8 response to inflammatory bowel disease mucosal E. coli and its inhibition by mesalamine. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2008;14(2):162–75.

[98]

Mimouna S, Goncalves D, Barnich N, Darfeuille-Michaud A, Hofman P, Vouret-Craviari V. Crohn disease-associated Escherichia coli promote gastrointestinal inflammatory disorders by activation of HIF-dependent responses. Gut Microbes 2011;2(6):335–46.

[99]

Hoesel B, Schmid JA. The complexity of NF-κB signaling in inflammation and cancer. Mol Cancer 2013;12(1):86.

[100]

Mcwilliams M, Phillips-Quagliata JM, Lamm ME. Characteristics of mesenteric lymph-node cells homing to gut-associated lymphoid-tissue in syngeneic mice. J Immunol 1975;115(1):54–8.

[101]

Kunisawa J, Kiyono H. Alcaligenes is commensal bacteria habituating in the gut-associated lymploid tissue for the regulation of intestinal IgA responses. Front Immunol 2012;3:65.

[102]

Fung TC, Bessman NJ, Hepworth MR, Kumar N, Shibata N, Kobuley D, et alLymphoid-tissue-resident commensal bacteria promote members of the IL-10 cytokine family to establish mutualism. Immunity 2016;44(3):634–46.

[103]

Beaugerie L, Itzkowitz SH. Cancers complicating inflammatory bowel disease. N Engl J Med 2015;372(15):1441–52.

[104]

Deitch EA. Bacterial translocation or lymphatic drainage of toxic products from the gut: what is important in human beings? Surgery 2002;131(3):241–4.

[105]

Grivennikov SI, Wang K, Mucida D, Stewart CA, Schnabl B, Jauch D, et alAdenoma-linked barrier defects and microbial products drive IL-23/IL-17-mediated tumour growth. Nature 2012;491(7423):254–8.

[106]

Elinav E, Nowarski R, Thaiss CA, Hu B, Jin CC, Flavell RA. Inflammation-induced cancer: crosstalk between tumours, immune cells and microorganisms. Nat Rev Cancer 2013;13(11):759–71.

[107]

Karin M, Greten FR. NF-κB: linking inflammation and immunity to cancer development and progression. Nat Rev Immunol 2005;5(10):749–59.

[108]

Liang J, Nagahashi M, Kim EY, Harikumar KB, Yamada A, Huang W, et alSphingosine-1-phosphate links persistent STAT3 activation, chronic intestinal inflammation, and development of colitis-associated cancer. Cancer Cell 2013;23(1):107–20.

[109]

Madia F, Grossi V, Peserico A, Simone C. Updates from the intestinal front line: autophagic weapons against inflammation and cancer. Cells 2012;1(3):535–57.

[110]

Vannucci L, Stepankova R, Kozakova H, Fiserova A, Rossmann P, Tlaskalova-Hogenova H. Colorectal carcinogenesis in germ-free and conventionally reared rats: different intestinal environments affect the systemic immunity. Int J Oncol 2008;32(3):609–17.

[111]

Li Y, Kundu P, Seow SW, de Matos CT, Aronsson L, Chin KC, et alGut microbiota accelerate tumor growth via c-jun and STAT3 phosphorylation in APCMin/+ mice. Carcinogenesis 2012;33(6):1231–8.

[112]

Louis P, Hold GL, Flint HJ. The gut microbiota, bacterial metabolites and colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Microbiol 2014;12(10):661–72.

[113]

Ou J, Carbonero F, Zoetendal EG, DeLany JP, Wang M, Newton K, et alDiet, microbiota, and microbial metabolites in colon cancer risk in rural Africans and African Americans. Am J Clin Nutr 2013;98(1):111–20.

[114]

Russell WR, Gratz SW, Duncan SH, Holtrop G, Ince J, Scobbie L, et alHigh-protein, reduced-carbohydrate weight-loss diets promote metabolite profiles likely to be detrimental to colonic health. Am J Clin Nutr 2011;93(5):1062–72.

[115]

Loh YH, Jakszyn P, Luben RN, Mulligan AA, Mitrou PN, Khaw KT. N-nitroso compounds and cancer incidence: the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Norfolk Study. Am J Clin Nutr 2011;93(5):1053–61.

[116]

Windey K, De Preter V, Verbeke K. Relevance of protein fermentation to gut health. Mol Nutr Food Res 2012;56(1):184–96.

[117]

Marquet P, Duncan SH, Chassard C, Bernalier-Donadille A, Flint HJ. Lactate has the potential to promote hydrogen sulphide formation in the human colon. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2009;299(2):128–34.

[118]

Roediger WE, Moore J, Babidge W. Colonic sulfide in pathogenesis and treatment of ulcerative colitis. Dig Dis Sci 1997;42(8):1571–9.

[119]

Di Martino ML, Campilongo R, Casalino M, Micheli G, Colonna B, Prosseda G. Polyamines: emerging players in bacteria-host interactions. Int J Med Microbiol 2013;303(8):484–91.

[120]

Pegg AE. Toxicity of polyamines and their metabolic products. Chem Res Toxicol 2013;26(12):1782–800.

[121]

Wiseman M. The second World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research expert report. Food, nutrition, physical activity, and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. Proc Nutr Soc 2008;67(3):253–6.

[122]

Homann N. Alcohol and upper gastrointestinal tract cancer: the role of local acetaldehyde production. Addict Biol 2001;6(4):309–23.

[123]

Lescut D, Colombel JF, Vincent P, Cortot A, Fournier L, Quandalle P, et alBacterial translocation in colorectal cancers. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 1990;14(11):811–4.

[124]

Klein GL, Petschow BW, Shaw AL, Weaver E. Gut barrier dysfunction and microbial translocation in cancer cachexia: a new therapeutic target. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care 2013;7(4):361–7.

[125]

Liang JQ, Chiu J, Chen Y, Huang Y, Higashimori A, Fang JY, et alFecal bacteria act as novel biomarkers for non-invasive diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. Epub 2016 Oct 3.

[126]

Wong SH, Kwong TN, Chow TC, Luk AK, Dai RZ, Nakatsu G, et alQuantitation of faecal Fusobacterium improves faecal immunochemical test in detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia. Gut. Epub 2016 Oct 24.

[127]

Wei Z, Cao S, Liu S, Yao Z, Sun T, Li Y, et alCould gut microbiota serve as prognostic biomarker associated with colorectal cancer patients’ survival? A pilot study on relevant mechanism. Oncotarget 2016;7(29):46158–72.

[128]

Rubinstein MR, Wang X, Liu W, Hao Y, Cai G, Han YW. Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes colorectal carcinogenesis by modulating E-cadherin/β-catenin signaling via its FadA adhesin. Cell Host Microbe 2013;14(2):195–206.

Funding

()

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2017 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier LTD on behalf of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and Higher Education Press Limited Company. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

AI Summary AI Mindmap
PDF (1097KB)

2927

Accesses

0

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

AI思维导图

/