Abstract
Recent advances in understanding the modulatory functions of gut and gut microbiota on human diseases facilitated our focused attention on the contribution of the gut to the pathophysiological alterations of many extraintestinal organs, including the liver, heart, brain, lungs, kidneys, bone, skin, reproductive, and endocrine systems. In this review, we applied the “gut–X axis” concept to describe the linkages between the gut and other organs and discussed the latest findings related to the “gut–X axis,” including the underlying modulatory mechanisms and potential clinical intervention strategies.
Keywords: bone, brain, gut, heart, kidney, liver, lung
The concept of “gut–X axis”: the intestine and intestinal microbiota are proven to be able to modulate the pathophysiologic progressions of the extraintestinal organs' diseases. The bioactive chemicals and/or intestinal immune cells can translocate into the circulatory system and other organs and influence the immune reactions, metabolic status, cells physiology, and so forth of extraintestinal organs, finally regulating these organs' homeostasis. Meanwhile, other organs may reversely impact the intestine, namely such regulatory axis is bidirectional.

Highlights
The gut and gut microbiota modulate the homeostasis of extraintestinal organs.
The gut microbiota‐derived bioactive substances regulate the development of diseases in the extraintestinal organs.
Targeting intestinal microbiota is a promising strategy for treating the diseases of extraintestinal organs.
INTRODUCTION
The gut serves as a key organ in driving the incidence and development of various extraintestinal organ diseases. For example, intestinal bacteria‐derived toxic substance trimethylamine N‐oxide (TMAO) is a well‐established inducer for metabolic and cardiovascular abnormalities. Besides, microbial‐derived beneficial subtracts such as short‐chain fatty acids (SCFAs)—acetate, propionate, butyrate, and indole derivatives—protect against multiple organ injuries. On the other hand, pathological changes in the organ “X” can influence the gut microbiota composition and functions. Thus, the interplay between the gut and extraintestinal organs is complex. Herein, we systemically revisited the current knowledge about the gut–X axis and discussed potential clinical intervention strategies.
GUT–LIVER AXIS
Overview
Since the intestine and liver have close physiological and pathological links, the concept of the “gut–liver axis” is now widely accepted. The connection between the gut and liver has several important components. Bile acids undergo an enterohepatic circulation, and the components of the bile, including the primary bile acids and bilirubin, can be metabolized by the gut microbiota. The products of these reactions can modulate the functions of both the intestine and the liver. Furthermore, gut microbiota‐derived products, including bioactive metabolites, microbial‐associated molecular patterns (MAMPs), outer membrane vesicles (OMVs), and bacterial debris, can enter the portal vein and influence liver pathophysiology during disease development. In addition, immune cells from the gut can translocate to the liver and modulate the local immune microenvironment. Finally, both the intestine and liver can influence systemic immune and metabolic homeostasis and have indirect effects on each other during disease progression (Figure 1). In this section, we discuss the latest findings regarding the gut–liver axis in the context of specific liver diseases and future perspectives.
Figure 1.

The connection between the liver and the intestine is bidirectional. Specifically, intestinal‐derived substances including MAMPs and microbial metabolites could directly influence the liver, in contrast, liver‐generated factors including primary bile acids and proteins could affect intestinal homeostasis.
Fatty liver disease
Fatty liver disease, comprising alcoholic liver disease (ALD) and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), is currently the predominant condition affecting the liver worldwide. It is well established that the intestine substantially affects both ALD and NAFLD progressions.
Chronic alcohol abuse leads to intestinal bacterial overgrowth, enteric dysbiosis, and gut barrier disruption, which facilitate the translocation of MAMPs to the liver via the portal vein. The overgrowth of certain bacterial species, such as Enterococcus, activates toll‐like receptor (TLR)‐2 in hepatic macrophages and exacerbates liver inflammation and damage during ALD [1]. Furthermore, intestinal antimicrobial peptide deficiency increases liver inflammation and promotes ALD progression [2]. Hepatic macrophages are critical for bacterial clearance, and ethanol reduces the expression of complement receptors of the immunoglobulin superfamily in macrophages, thereby decreasing their capacity to clear bacteria and facilitating liver damage [3]. Abnormal expression or distribution of IgA and polymeric immunoglobulin receptors promotes bacterial translocation and worsens ALD [4].
Dysbiosis‐associated intestinal inflammation is one of the primary causes of greater intestinal permeability [5]. Alcoholic liver disease‐associated dysbiosis can be characterized in several ways. For example, many bacterially derived toxins are produced in larger quantities. Cytolysin, an exotoxin produced by Enterococcus faecalis, directly participates in the liver damage induced by chronic alcohol consumption [6]. Interestingly, bacteriophages that specifically target cytolytic E. faecalis markedly ameliorate ALD in mice. Whereas, the exotoxin candida lysin produced by Candida albicans damages hepatocytes and worsens alcoholic hepatitis [7]. In addition to bacteria and fungi, viruses present in the gut may also be involved in ALD [8]. However, it is difficult to propagate viruses in culture, and therefore, the effects of such viruses must be investigated in the future once these technical limitations have been resolved.
The intestine itself participates in the progression of ALD. Intestinal immune cells, including natural killer T cell (NKT) and Th17 cells, migrate to the liver during alcohol administration, where they have harmful effects on hepatocytes [9, 10]. The IL‐22 produced by intestinal immune cells is important for the maintenance of gut homeostasis, and the progression of ALD is associated with lower IL‐22 secretion. Importantly, restoration of the IL‐22 concentration ameliorated ALD in mice [11]. The intestinal aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), which recognizes many bioactive substances, including indole derivates, is believed to protect against ALD [12], and the engineered bacteria generating AhR agonists alleviated ALD [13]. Thus, both the gut and gut microbiota have important effects on ALD progression. However, the mechanisms involved should be characterized in more detail.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NAFLD/NASH, currently also known as metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD)/metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatohepatitis [MASH]) is a long‐term hepatic disorder characterized by a complex pathogenesis involving the gut and gut microbiota. Similar to ALD, enteric dysbiosis and gut barrier disruption have been documented in NAFLD patients as well. It is known that intestinal barrier dysfunction develops during the early stages of NASH, and the maintenance of the gut barrier ameliorates NASH‐associated bacterial translocation and liver damage [14]. The development and severity of NAFLD/NASH are associated with alterations in the composition and functions of gut microbiota. For example, the expression of genes involved in the generation of pro‐inflammatory microbial products is markedly upregulated in pediatric patients with NAFLD/NASH [15]. The metabolic functions of the gut microbiota differ in NAFLD patients [16]. Moreover, the gut microbial metagenomic signature could be used for the noninvasive diagnosis of NAFLD‐associated liver fibrosis in humans [17]. Notably, the specific bacterial taxa showing an abnormal abundance and function in NAFLD/NASH differed among the cohorts studied, possibly because of variations in ethnicity and disease severity.
Many bacterial taxa and their products affect NALFD. Odoribacteraceae induces the expansion of a specific subtype of macrophages in the liver, where it participates in NASH progression [18]. Classic probiotics such as Akkermansia and Bifidobacterium prevent NAFLD in mice [19, 20]. In addition, secondary bile acids produced by gut bacteria, such as hyodeoxycholic acid (HDCA), ameliorate NAFLD by increasing the abundance of the probiotic Parabacteroides distasonis and lipid catabolism [21]. A novel bile acid, 3‐succinylated cholic acid, has recently been shown to increase the abundance of Akkermansia muciniphila and ameliorate NAFLD [22]. Besides, the gut microbiota degrades nicotine in the intestine and mitigates the nicotine‐associated progression of NAFLD [23]. Apart from the bacteria, the intestine itself participates in NAFLD. For example, intestinal peroxisome proliferator‐activated receptor (PPAR) alpha affects the uptake of dietary fat in the gut and promotes NASH progression [24]. Since the fatty liver is closely associated with cardiovascular diseases, it is noticeable that the modulation of NAFLD through the intestine may also influence metabolic and cardiovascular abnormalities.
Toxin‐induced acute liver injury
The liver is the most important detoxification organ, and it is exposed to many endogenous and exogenous toxins during daily life that can cause damage. Carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) toxin is most widely used to establish animal models of chemically induced hepatotoxicity. CCl4 disrupts intestinal homeostasis [25], and targeting the gut microbiota may be an effective means of mitigating CCl4‐induced acute liver injury [26]. This may be due to a rapid disruption of liver function by CCl4 affecting communication between the liver and gut. The maintenance of enteric eubiosis would likely support hepatic anti‐inflammatory and antioxidative responses and protect against acute hepatotoxicity.
Acetaminophen (APAP; paracetamol) overdose is recognized as the leading cause of acute liver failure in developed countries. Damage‐associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) have long been recognized as the principal contributors to liver inflammation and subsequent hepatocyte damage. However, recent studies identified APAP‐mediated rapid disruption of the gut barrier [27, 28]. The gut microbiota also participates in APAP‐induced acute liver failure. For example, A. muciniphila maintains enteric bacterial function and reduces hepatic glutathione depletion and liver inflammation, leading to protection against APAP‐induced liver damage [29]. In addition, bacteria‐derived phenylpropionic acid has been shown to determine the susceptibility of mice to APAP‐induced acute liver damage [30], possibly through an effect on cytochrome P450 2E1 (CYP2E1) expression. We recently found the role of Bifidobacterium‐derived indole‐3‐carboxylic acid (I3C) in directly targeting CYP2E1 and suppressing its activity, which also protects against APAP‐induced acute liver injury [31]. Thus, microbial products may have significant effects on the liver pathophysiology induced by APAP. However, liver injury induced by other drugs may also be influenced by the gut microbiota. For example, deglucuronidation of tacrine is affected by the gut microbiota, and a higher level of deglucuronidation in the gut leads to greater systemic exposure to tacrine, which increases enterohepatic recycling and worsens liver injury in rats [32].
Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), a fungal metabolite and food contaminant, is highly hepatotoxic. AFB1 disrupts intestinal farnesoid X receptor (FXR) signaling, but beneficial interventions such as melatonin treatment increase intestinal FXR expression and reduce both the gut and liver abnormalities following AFB1 exposure [33, 34]. Moreover, probiotic administration ameliorates the toxic effects of AFB1 in humans [35], but the underlying mechanisms require further investigation. These findings imply the contribution of intestinal and gut microbiota in influencing toxin‐induced acute liver damage.
Cholestatic liver diseases
Cholestasis can be induced by many hepatic insults. Autoimmune reactions are one of the main causes of cholestatic liver diseases (CLDs). Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) are the predominant forms of CLD induced by autoimmune dysfunctions. It is known that the overall gut microbial composition of PBC patients is abnormal, and specifically, Faecalibacterium is much less abundant in patients with certain types of PBC. Ursodeoxycholic acid, a functional secondary bile acid, is the most effective drug for the treatment of CLD, which partially restores the dysbiosis that characterizes PBC [36]. Primary sclerosing cholangitis patients also show enteric dysbiosis, involving changes in both microbial composition and metabolites [37]. These data imply the key role of gut microbiota in the pathogenesis of PBC and PSC.
Dysbiosis in CLD patients can independently cause liver injury, as evidenced by fecal microbial transplantation experiments, and therefore, disruptions in the normal biota may drive the CLD progression [38]. Primary biliary cholangitis‐associated dysbiosis increases NOD‐like receptor pyrin domain containing 3 (NLRP3)‐mediated hepatic inflammation, but the mechanisms involved are complex. Moreover, Lactobacillus gasseri from the gut can induce hepatic and systemic inflammation, characterized by an increase in γδ‐TCR+ cells and IL‐17 production, causing severe liver damage and fibrosis [39]. In addition, in mice, Enterococcus faecalis is harmful to the liver, which accelerates CLD progression, while Lachnospiraceae administration reduces liver inflammation and fibrosis [40]. These observations demonstrate the complexity of interactions between the gut microbiota and CLD. Apart from PBC and PSC, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) is another commonly diagnosed CLD in clinics. Intestinal Bacteroides fragilis inhibits signaling through FXR, which is responsible for an increased bile acid synthesis and ICP initiation in mice [41]. Thus, the gut microbiota has a substantial influence on CLD development, possibly due to bacteria‐mediated bile acid metabolization or the effect of bile acids on bacterial replication and functions. In addition, the intestinal microbiota affects the systemic and hepatic immune responses and determines the immune microenvironment.
Liver fibrosis/cirrhosis
Liver fibrosis is a consequence of chronic or repetitive liver damage, resulting in liver failure or cancer. Theoretically, acute insults contributing to liver damage may also influence fibrogenesis. As for other types of liver disease, liver fibrosis/cirrhosis is accompanied by gut dysbiosis. Interestingly, many oral bacteria are found more distally in the gut of cirrhosis patients [42]. The underlying mechanism may be complex. One possibility is diminished intestinal antimicrobial capacity during cirrhosis, affecting mouth bacterial clearance. However, the implications of this finding are unknown. Furthermore, the fungal diversity of cirrhosis patients is also abnormal, and the Bacteroidetes/Ascomycota ratio can be used to predict the risk of 90‐day hospitalization [43].
The gut microbiota comprises commensals that prevent liver fibrosis, as evidenced by the greater fibrosis observed in germ‐free mice [44]. This phenotype may be attributed to microbiota‐mediated training of the host immune system. However, intestinal abnormalities may subsequently augment liver fibrosis. In experimental fibrosis, intestinal FXR signaling is impaired, which exacerbates the gut–vascular barrier dysfunctions and bacterial translocation, which promotes liver damage [45]. Hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) play a pivotal role in the accumulation of extracellular matrix, and the gut microbiota may directly or indirectly modulate the activity of HSCs. For example, the microbial metabolite 10‐hydroxy‐cis‐12‐octadecenoic acid suppresses Smad3 signaling in HSC and inhibits its fibrogenic activity [46]. In contrast, 3‐indole propionic acid activates HSCs through ROS‐dependent MAPK signaling pathway [47]. Thus, the effects of the gut microbiota on liver fibrosis are complex.
Targeting the gut microbiota may be an effective approach to treat liver fibrosis. Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) administration restores intestinal FXR signaling and reduces hepatic concentrations of bile acids, causing amelioration of experimental cholestatic fibrosis [48]. In addition, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is a promising means of attenuating liver fibrosis. For example, feces from cirrhosis patients may augment neuroinflammation [49], whereas feces from a healthy donor improves the cognitive function of patients suffering from hepatic encephalopathy [50]. However, before the utilization of this approach in the clinics, its long‐term safety and efficacy require further careful analysis.
Liver cancer
Liver cancer most frequently occurs as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). The gut microbiota affects the incidence, development, and therapy of both HCC and ICC. Fatty liver‐associated HCC is closely linked to gut dysbiosis, characterized by depletion of probiotics. Importantly, eubiosis restoration prevents HCC, implying dysbiosis is an inducer of HCC [51]. Dysbiosis may lead to systemic inflammation, and the plasma concentrations of IL8, IL13, and CCL3 are high in HCC patients [52]. Similarly, as ICC progresses, patients demonstrate greater abundance of certain bacterial taxa (Ruminococcaceae) in the gut, abnormal microbial metabolism, and altered cytokine expression [53]. Thus, the assessment of gut microbial composition may represent a noninvasive diagnostic method for detecting early HCC [54].
The gut microbiota is also involved in liver cancer pathogenesis. Gut microbiota‐derived secondary bile acids affect hepatic CXCL16 expression and NKT cell accumulation, which inhibits liver cancer progression [55]. In addition, the Gram‐positive bacterial component lipoteichoic acid suppresses antitumor immunity via the COX2/PGE2 axis and accelerates HCC progression [56]. In addition, Lactobacillus reuteri‐derived tryptophan metabolites inhibit liver tumorigenesis through the AhR/SREBP2 axis [57]. Intestinal bacteria can also affect the abundance of myeloid‐derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and liver cancer progression; for example, Gram‐negative bacteria may cause the accumulation of MDSCs and promote liver cancer [58]. However, the Gram‐negative bacterial species A. muciniphila reduces the abundance of MDSCs [59]. Thus, not all Gram‐negative bacteria have the same effects on MDSCs. Enterococcus faecalis colonization of the gut influences TLR4 signaling and accelerates HCC progression [60]. In addition, microbially generated acetate induces a hyper‐O‐GlcNAcylation state and accelerates HCC development [61]. However, another study showed suppression of the IL‐6/JAK1/STAT3 signaling by acetate binding to G‐protein‐coupled receptor 43 (GPR43), preventing HCC progression [62]. These contradictory findings indicate the complex contribution of microbiota and microbial products to liver cancer. Therefore, further understanding of the etiologic mechanisms of liver cancer is required.
Novel treatments for liver cancer may be obtained by targeting the gut microbiota. For example, Prohep, a probiotic mixture, benefits the intestinal microbial community and slows HCC progression [63]. Bifidobacterium longum accelerates recovery of liver functions in postoperative patients [64], and A. muciniphila participates in response to anti‐PD‐1 immunotherapy in HCC patients [65]. Thus, normalization of the abundance of these bacterial species may increase the efficacy of immunotherapy. Indeed, butyrate synergistically improves the effects of sorafenib [66]. However, inappropriate manipulations of the gut microbiota, such as using an overdose of prebiotics (soluble fiber inulin), may predispose toward HCC [67]. Therefore, further candidate treatments should be investigated to optimize the outcomes of liver cancer patients.
Section summary
In conclusion, the intestine and gut microbiota may affect the progression of almost all types of liver disease. The causal role played by the gut microbiota is now clear: They may represent upstream modulators of liver dysfunctions. However, the mechanisms involved have not been well characterized. Future studies should aim to further characterize and explore the molecular mechanisms of the gut–liver axis by identifying additional beneficial intestinal molecules/cells and microbial species/products. Such findings require rapid translation to permit improved treatments for liver diseases. We expect that more effective approaches targeting the gut and gut microbiota will be identified soon. Finally, the gut–liver axis shows bidirectional regulation; that is, the liver may also modulate intestinal homeostasis. For example, a pigment epithelium‐derived factor (PEDF) produced in the liver inhibits intestinal stem cell hyperproliferation and may participate in the progression of colitis [68]. However, the studies performed to date have mainly focused on how the gut influences the liver, and therefore, future studies should also focus on the effect of the liver on intestinal diseases. Besides, with the development of advanced technologies, we need to integrate these useful approaches (i.e., bacteria single‐cell sequencing, engineered microbiota, and phage technology) into the investigation of the gut–liver axis. Finally, the successful translation into clinic is quite limited; hence, clinic trials based on promising basic research are urgently required.
GUT–KIDNEY AXIS
Overview
The interactions between the gut microbiota and the host can affect the functions of other organs as well. The gut–kidney axis refers to the bidirectional regulatory mechanism between the gut microecosystem and the kidneys through the production of metabolites by microorganisms. Gut microbiota affects the kidney by producing bile acids, SCFAs, neurotransmitters, uremic toxins (UTs), and inflammatory factors. Meanwhile, the kidneys can excrete gut‐derived toxins and synthesize hormones to regulate intestinal homeostasis [69, 70] (Figure 2). When the gut microecosystem of nephropathy patients is disturbed, nephrotoxin production will increase, causing damage to renal functions. Since then, the accumulation of toxins damages the intestinal barrier, eventually forming a vicious cycle between the gut and the kidneys.
Figure 2.

Gut–kidney axis crosstalk mechanisms. Intestinal homeostasis can affect the kidney in multiple ways, including microbial composition, gut barrier permeability, and the gut microbiota derived‐functional metabolites (bile acids, short‐chain fatty acids, neurotransmitters, uremic toxins, and inflammatory factors, etc.). Meanwhile, the kidney can excrete gut‐derived toxins and synthesize hormones to regulate intestinal homeostasis and form a two‐way crosstalk mechanism.
Gut microbiota and kidney diseases
Chronic kidney disease
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is one of the major public health problems, affecting 10%−15% of the global population [71]. The main manifestation of gut microbiota in CKD patients is a decrease in microbial diversity, with a reduced level of SCFA‐producing bacteria such as Bifidobacteriaceae, Lactobacillus, Blautia, and Roseburia [72], which implies that a high‐fiber diet may be helpful for CKD treatment. Protein‐decomposing bacteria like Enterobacteriaceae, Enterococcaceae, and Klebsiella are increased. These bacteria can produce UTs such as p‐cresol sulfate (PCS) and indoxyl sulfate (IS), causing damage to the intestinal barrier and kidneys [73]. This suggests that high‐protein diets may impair kidney functions and increase the risk of end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) [74]. In addition, the choline‐derived gut microbiota metabolite TMAO can aggravate fibrosis in CKD patients by activating the NLRP3 inflammasome [75]. Moreover, high levels of TMAO can increase mortality in CKD patients by 2.8 times and predict a poor prognosis for treatment [76].
Since UTs cannot be removed by dialysis, the accumulation of UTs in the body will accelerate the incidence of ESRD. Different from CKD patients, serum secondary bile acid (SBA) level is significantly increased in ESRD patients, and the abundance of SBA‐synthesizing genes of Eggerthella lenta and Fusobacterium nucleatum is increased with a significant decrease in Faecalibacterium prausnitzii [77]. With the progression of CKD, the composition and functions of gut microbiota will also change, accelerating the transformation to ESRD. This suggests that the gut microbiota is a significant biomarker that needs to be monitored in CKD patients. It also provides important tips for the treatment strategy based on gut microbiota. Regulation of gut microbiota is expected to become a complementary therapy for dialysis.
Diabetic nephropathy
Diabetic nephropathy (DN) is one of the most common complications of diabetic microangiopathy and an important cause of ESRD. The imbalance of gut microbiota is one of the key triggers of DN, mainly manifesting as an increased level of Escherichia, Citrobacter, and Klebsiella with a decrease in Roseburia [78]. However, not only the gut microbiota but also the gut virome of DN patients are changed. The virus abundance and diversity are significantly reduced, especially the function of phages lysing host bacteria [79]. These results suggest that combining gut viral and bacterial markers may be a good diagnostic method for DN. Changes in the intestinal microecological composition will inevitably cause changes in metabolites. Hu et al. found that circulating acetate in DN patients upregulates GPR43 expression, increases cholesterol accumulation in the renal tubular epithelial cells, and disrupts cholesterol homeostasis, leading to proteinuria and renal tubular interstitial injuries [80]. This also hints at SCFAs' different roles in various diseases. At the same time, apart from promoting CKD pathogenesis, aromatic amino acids are also risk factors for DN. For example, tyrosine is converted into phenylsulfate (PS) under the action of a series of enzymes like tyrosine lyase produced by the gut microbiota, which promotes proteinuria [81]. Exosomes as a tool for intracellular communication will become pathogenic factors in the disturbed intestinal environment. For instance, gut microbiota‐derived outer membrane exosomes are increased in DN rats, which damaged the intestinal vascular barrier and activated the caspase‐11/1 pathway, triggering inflammation in kidneys [82]. This observation provides new insights into the relationship between gut microbiota disturbance and DN pathogenesis, making gut microbiota a promising therapeutic target for DN.
Immune‐associated nephropathy
Since the gut is an important immune organ of the body, the relationship between gut microbiota and autoimmune diseases has also received much attention. Lupus nephritis (LN) is the most common complication of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and there is no effective treatment in clinic [83]. LN patients have dysregulated gut microbiota, with a significant change in diversity and complexity [84]. Among them, an increase in Ruminococcus gnavus (Rg) is most obvious. Rg specifically expresses cell membrane lipoglycan and induces the host to spontaneously produce high levels of antigen‐specific IgG antibodies, one of the pathogenic factors in SLE [85]. At the same time, a low‐fiber diet and other dietary habits that destroy intestinal homeostasis will also accelerate LN pathogenesis by increasing intestinal leakage and activating adaptive immunity [86].
IgA nephropathy (IgAN) is the most common primary glomerulonephritis and is classified as a type of autoimmune disease. Intestinal homeostasis imbalance may mediate IgAN prevalence. In IgAN patients, Escherichia, Veillonaceae, Akkermansia, and Bacteroides are significantly upregulated, while Dialister is significantly downregulated [87]. Mechanistically, deglycosylation of IgA by an upregulated Akkermansia exposes neoepitopes for serum IgG binding, which leads to immune complex formation and IgAN development [88]. In addition, intestinal mucosal immunity may also be involved in IgAN pathogenesis. For example, a lower level expression of gamma‐aminobutyric acid transporter‐2 (GAT‐2) in B cells changes intestinal IgA+ B cell response and gut microbiota composition, activates GABA‐mammalian rapamycin complex 1 target (mTORC1) axis, promotes germinal center B cell differentiation, and induces colon SIgA production [89]. In summary, these studies provide a deeper understanding of the relationship between gut microbiota and autoimmune nephropathy and offer new ideas to explore the mechanisms behind gut and immune diseases.
Other kidney diseases
In addition to chronic diseases, changes in the intestinal bacteria composition after acute renal injuries (kidney stones and ischemia‐reperfusion) have also been reported. Some studies also pointed out the effects of gut microbiota on the response of renal cell carcinoma patients to immune checkpoint inhibitors [90]. However, most of these studies stay at the correlation level and lack the elucidation of deep causal mechanisms. Even then, this provides a new direction for the follow‐up studies on the gut–kidney axis.
Gut microbiota and treatment of kidney diseases
Medication
All the above studies have proved that gut microbiota can be used as a key target for treating kidney diseases with enormous clinical development potential. Drugs targeting gut microbiota are becoming a potential strategy for treating kidney diseases. Traditional Chinese medicines (TCM), especially those that are difficult to absorb orally, will inevitably interact with the gut microbiota [91]. The active components of TCM may protect kidneys by regulating gut microbiota [92]. Berberine (BBR) is one of the most studied original natural drugs in China in recent years, and its improvement of metabolic diseases like atherosclerosis and diabetes [93, 94, 95, 96] through gut microbiota has been confirmed by multiple studies. BBR has the efficacy of alleviating CKD by inhibiting Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1 (p‐cresol producing bacteria) abundance and TyrB, a key enzyme in the tyrosine‐p‐cresol pathway, activity causing a reduction in the level of p‐cresyl sulfate (PCS). BBR can also increase the abundance of butyrate‐producing bacteria and butyric acid levels. These mechanisms together contribute to the renal protective activity of BBR [97, 98]. This study was rated as an important medical development (pharmacy & pharmacology field) in China during 2023, providing new evidence for studying the mechanisms of TCM through the gut–kidney axis. Similarly, flavonoids are also a hot spot in the field of gut microbiota. Isoquercitrin inhibits hydrogen proton potential by regulating gut microbial electron transport chain and tryptophan transport and reduces indole biosynthesis [99]. In addition to inhibiting gut microbiota‐derived UTs, Magnesium salvianolate B alters the intestinal bile acid metabolism and delays DN progression [100]. Macromolecular polysaccharides present in TCM are also closely related to gut microbiota. Moutan polysaccharide improves intestinal barrier functions by increasing SCFAs and reducing branched‐chain amino acids (BCAAs) in DN rats, thereby inhibiting inflammation and improving kidney injuries [101]. In addition to TCM, chemical drugs also contribute to kidney protection through the gut–kidney axis. Depletion of intestinal microbiome by oral broad‐spectrum antibiotics in mice reduced the level of TMAO, which alleviated the transition from acute kidney injury to chronic kidney disease [102]. Therefore, targeted elimination of specific pathogenic bacteria might be used to control the development of kidney diseases. Sodium‐glucose cotransporter‐2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are novel hypoglycemic agents, which can also reduce the circulating UT levels by decreasing the abundance of phenylalanine and tryptophan metabolizing gut microbiota [103].
However, in addition to therapeutic effects, some drugs can induce nephrotoxicity through gut microbiota. For example, long‐term consumption of Rhizoma alismatis causes structural disturbances of gut microbiota, leading to an imbalance of amino acid and phospholipid metabolism in kidneys [104]; After oral administration of matrine, an active ingredient of Sophora flavescens, the intestinal metabolite hippuric acid is significantly reduced, which causes an imbalance of renal energy metabolism [105]; Cisplatin, as a widely used chemotherapeutic drug, aggravates intestinal barrier damage resulting in a high level of endotoxemia forming a micro‐inflammatory environment, which facilitates its renal toxicity [106]. This also suggests that gut microbiota needs to be fully considered in the rational use of clinical drugs.
Probiotics
As a new intervention to regulate gut microbiota, probiotics have received more attention in the treatment of CKD [107]. F. prausnitzii produces butyric acid and exerts renal protective activity by acting on the G‐protein‐coupled receptor‐43 [108]. Prophylactic supplementation with Lactobacillus casei Zhang elevates SCFAs and niacinamide and reduces inflammatory responses in the renal macrophages and tubular epithelial cells [109]. Bacteroides fragilis upregulates renal glucose transporter SGLT2 expression, increases reabsorption of 5‐anhydroglucitol, and eventually activates bile acid receptor TGR5 to inhibit oxidative stress in CKD mice [110]. Lactobacillus paracasei HII01 promotes enterotoxins excretion by improving the organic anion transporter 3 (OAT3) transporter function in the kidney [111]. Probiotics have a good therapeutic efficacy in not only CKD but also other kidney diseases. Lactobacillus reduces IL‐6 in the gut while increasing IL‐10, tilts the Treg‐Th17 balance in favor of T regulatory cells (Tregs), thereby improving LN [112]. Oral administration of Oxalobacter formigenes prevents calcium oxalate crystal deposition in rat kidneys and reduces kidney stone formation [113]. Thus, probiotic therapy facilitates exploring the molecular mechanisms of disease development further and expands the horizon for clinical treatment. A long‐term intervention of gut microbiota as a therapy is the direction for future research.
Diet
Diet intervention can also delay or even improve renal disease through gut microbiota modulation. Sulfur‐containing amino acids in dietary proteins can affect protein functions through posttranslational modifications. For example, the thiolation of the tryptophan enzyme (TnaA) in the gut bacteria inhibits their ability to produce indole and reduces UT generation [114]. In addition, dietary habits like fasting, consumption of diets having 80%−100% sulfur‐containing amino acids (SR80/100), and calorie restriction diets may also exert renal protection by regulating cysteine oxidation and hydrogen sulfide‐dependent catabolism [115]. These results demonstrate the influence of microbiome intervention on the host and have reference value for the study of intestinal microbiome–host interactions and the development of dietary interventions to alleviate kidney diseases.
Section summary
The widespread use of multiomics technologies has greatly deepened our understanding of the role of gut microbiota in health and disease [116]. With the progression of kidney disease, the intestinal microecological imbalance is difficult to compensate for, and UT production increases, which not only accelerates the loss of kidney functions but also increases the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality. This also indicates that the homeostasis imbalance of the gut–kidney axis can also affect the normal functioning of other axes. By restoring intestinal homeostasis, kidney diseases can be controlled. Most nephropathy therapies targeting intestinal microecology are aimed at restoring intestinal bacterial composition and functions to reduce UT production such as drugs, probiotics, and dietary therapies (Figure 3). The application of gut microbiome research in the treatment of kidney disease has a great prospect, but there are still a series of challenges to be overcome in the clinical translation process, such as individual differences in efficacy, the optimal dosage and formulation of probiotics and prebiotics, ethical requirements, and deeper mechanism exploration. These obstacles require more clinical studies to further optimize treatment strategies and also provide deeper insights into precision medicine.
Figure 3.

Intervention strategies based on the gut–kidney axis. There are three main ways to intervene kidney disease by gut microbiota, including diet, probiotics, and drugs. High‐protein/fat diets aggravate kidney disease by disrupting the intestinal microbiome, while high‐fiber diet can restore gut microbiota homeostasis to help protect the kidneys. Probiotics like Lactobacillus alleviate kidney disease by producing beneficial metabolites. Drug therapy, represented by natural drugs derived from Chinese herbal medicine and antibiotics, mainly produces renoprotective activity by inhibiting UT production and anti‐inflammatory and anti‐oxidative mechanisms.
GUT–LUNG AXIS
Overview
The gut–lung axis is gaining increasing attention, as the stability of the gut microecology (homeostasis of the gut microbiota) plays a crucial role in maintaining pulmonary health. Dysbiosis of gut microbiota can lead to a variety of lung diseases through the gut–lung axis, including viral pneumonia, asthma, tuberculosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [117]. Clinical evidence has confirmed the existence of a pathophysiological connection between the lungs and the large intestine. The structural homology between the lungs and intestines constitutes the foundation of the “gut–lung axis,” with the lungs, trachea, respiratory tract epithelium, and intestines all originating from the endoderm during embryonic development [118, 119]. The lower lobe of the lungs is adjacent to the transverse colon, and both are connected through the diaphragm [120]. Physiologically, the lungs and large intestine also share functional links. The lungs primarily facilitate the inhalation of oxygen and the exhalation of carbon dioxide, while the large intestine is mainly responsible for the absorption and excretion of water and electrolytes. Thus, their functions complement each other, collectively maintaining the body's normal physiological functions. This includes typical mucosal structures, secretory IgA, cytokines, innate lymphoid cells, B lymphocytes, and other immune cells. The gastrointestinal and respiratory mucosa are integral components of the common mucosal immune system (Figure 4). The lymphocyte homing to the mucosa is selective and a prerequisite for mucosal immunity. When a mucosal site is affected, the local immune responses are activated via the mucosal immune pathway, leading to a generalized immune response with varying degrees of reactivity at different mucosal sites. For instance, intestinal microbes can induce the production of innate lymphoid cells (ILCs) type 2 and 3, which migrate to the respiratory tract through the lymphatic and circulatory systems, enhancing immune activities in the respiratory system [121]. This interplay may also exist in diseases, as segmented filamentous bacteria (SFB)‐specific Th17 cells with dual T cell antigen receptors, one specific for SFB and another for self‐antigens, can migrate to the respiratory tract and cause pulmonary damage [122]. Conversely, microbial infections in the respiratory tract can reduce SFB numbers and increase Escherichia coli population in the gut, thereby stimulating an increased expression of IL‐15 in intestinal epithelial cells, promoting Th17 cell polarization, and potentially leading to intestinal immune damage [123]. Moreover, the endocrine pathways of the gut–lung axis are also crucial. Intestinal and pulmonary communication is primarily mediated through the circulatory transport of soluble microbial components and metabolites. Intestinal microbiota components, like PAMPs, interact with the innate immune system's pattern recognition receptors, such as Toll‐like receptors (TLRs), to trigger inflammatory responses, thereby activating the immune system [124]. Activation of intestinal TLR signaling triggers the pulmonary immune system [125, 126, 127]. Furthermore, innate immune cells from the intestinal mucosa can directly migrate to the respiratory tract through the peripheral circulation and participate in the maintenance of respiratory immune homeostasis. ILCs residing at the mucosal surfaces can enhance immune responses, maintain mucosal integrity, and preserve tissue homeostasis. IL‐25 or helminth‐induced inflammatory ILC2s can migrate into the lymphatic and blood circulation in a sphingosine 1‐phosphate (S1P)‐dependent manner, eventually accumulating in the lungs to combat helminth infections and promoting tissue repair [128].
Figure 4.

The gut–lung axis is mediated by immune and endocrine pathways. The gut–lung axis affects pulmonary inflammation, ventilation‐perfusion mismatch, alveolar permeability, and emphysema through immune cell migration and gut microenvironment changes. ILC2 and ILC3 cells can damage airway epithelial cells, increasing mucus and accelerating inflammation. Conversely, dendritic cells and monocytes can reduce lung inflammation. Gut microenvironment alterations release cytokines like IL‐17 and TNF‐α, which travel to the lungs to reduce infection risk. Gut microbiota stimulates B cells to produce IgA, enhancing lung immunity and slowing dysbiosis. This boosts neutrophil responses, reduces cytokine production, decreases mast cell activity, and promotes tolerance in lymphocytes.
The gut microbiota not only regulates the immune responses in the gastrointestinal tract but also affects the health and disease of distant organs like the respiratory system. Through regulation of the gut microbiome, the lungs and intestines are physiologically interconnected and can pathologically influence each other. This section discusses the relationship between gut microbiota and respiratory diseases, mechanisms of action of the gut–lung axis, and clinical applications.
The role of gut–lung axis in the pathogenesis of respiratory disorders
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
COPD progression in patients is closely associated with gut microbiomes [129]. COPD patients exhibit significant differences in the diversity and composition of gut microbiota compared to healthy controls (Table 1), predominantly characterized by phyla Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Verrucomicrobia at the phylum level [130]. The pulmonary microbiome, consisting of genera such as Prevotella, Veillonella, Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, Fusobacterium, Sphingomonas, Rothia, Staphylococcus, and Streptococcus, constitutes the “core microbiome” distinguishing COPD patients from the normal population [131]. Additionally, genera like Achromobacter, Gemella, and Capnocytophaga have been identified in the lower respiratory tract of COPD patients [132]. Further, a correlation between a decline in lung function in COPD patients and multiple genera, including Streptococcus, Streptomyces, and Veillonella, has been identified [133].
Table 1.
Dysbiosis in the lungs and gut influences COPD, asthma, and lung cancer.
| Diseases | Lungs | Gut | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COPD | Bacteria | Fungi | Bacteria | Fungi | ||
| Increase | Decrease | Increase | Increase | Decrease | Increase | |
| Hemophilus | Firmicutes | Candida | Streptococcus parasanguinis_B | Pheumocystis | ||
| Afipia | Acitinobacteria | Aspergillus | Streptococcus salivarius | Malassezia | ||
| Brevundimonas | Streptococcus | Candida | Firmicutes | Acitinobacteria | ||
| Curvibacter | Phialosimplex | Prevotella | Bacteroidetes | |||
| Moraxella | Penicillium | Rothia | Roseburia | |||
| Neisseria | Cladosporium | Romboutsia | Lachnospira | |||
| Undibacterium | Eutypella | Intestinibacter | ||||
| Corynebacterium | Aspregillus | Escherichia | ||||
| Capnocytophaga | ||||||
| Leptolyngbya | ||||||
| Asthma | Streptococcus | Bifidobacterium | Rhodotorula | Haemophilus | Mogibacteriaceae | Pheumocystis |
| Bacteroides | Akkemrmansia | Candida | Moraxella | Lactobacillales | Malassezia | |
| Faecalibacterium | Pichia Kudriavzevii | Neisseria | Alternaria | |||
| Lachospira | Wallemia mellicola | Fusobacterium | Cladosporium | |||
| Veillonella | Aspergillus amstelodami | Porphyromonas | Fusarium | |||
| Rothia | C. parapsilosis | Klebsiella | ||||
| Ruminococcus gnavus | Epicoccum nigrum | Sphingomonadaceae | ||||
| C. albicans | ||||||
| Lung cancer | Prevotella | Aspergillus sydowii | Bacteroides | Firmicutes | Saccharomyces | |
| Streptococcus | Candida | Proteobacteria | Actinomycetaceae | Aspergillus | ||
| Veillonella | Aspergillus niger | Enterococcus | Saccharobacteria | Apiotrichum | ||
| Neisseria | Aspergillus fumigatus | Lachnospira | Escherichia–Shigella | |||
| Haemophilus | Fusobacter | Kluyvera | ||||
| Clostridium | Enterobacter | |||||
| Porphyromonas | Dialister | |||||
| Megasphaera | Alistipes | |||||
| Capnocytophaga | ||||||
Dysbiosis of the gut microbiota, microbial translocation, and a reduction in SCFAs are associated with the severity of emphysema in rats [134]. A high‐fiber diet significantly increases the abundance of Bacteroidetes, the primary producers of SCFAs, which are the main metabolic products of the gut microbiota. SCFAs play a pivotal role in anti‐inflammatory mechanisms, including those mediated by the linoleic acid pathway, in halting the development of COPD and alleviating inflammation and alveolar damage [135]. A recent study using nontargeted fecal metagenomics and metabolomics reported significant differences in the composition of the gut microbiome and metabolome between COPD patients and healthy controls, with an increased abundance of Streptococcus parasanguinis_B in COPD [133]. In early studies on the acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), an increase in the abundance of S. parasanguinis_B and Streptococcus salivarius was found in fecal microbiota, while only S. parasanguinis_B was increased in sputum [136]. Furthermore, in a study comparing gut and lung microbiota, samples collected from 15 patients during a 14‐day antibiotics and steroids treatment period for COPD exacerbation, differences in the abundance of certain phyla were observed between the two sample types. However, there were no differences in the diversity of the core microbiota [130]. These studies collectively suggest that the potential crosstalk along the gut–lung axis may play a crucial role in COPD pathophysiology.
Asthma
Bronchial asthma is a chronic airway inflammatory disease characterized primarily by airway hyperresponsiveness as the principal pathophysiological alteration [137]. Multiple immune cells, including mast cells, eosinophils, and T lymphocytes, are involved in the pathogenesis of allergic asthma. The microbiome is a key regulator of immunity, metabolism, and cellular functions, responding to asthma‐associated inflammatory signals and potentially mediating asthma susceptibility, severity, and phenotypes [138].
Strachan's “hygiene hypothesis,” which highlights the non‐negligible role of the gut microbiome in the pathogenesis of asthma (Table 1), and Rook et al.'s “old friends theory” suggests that restoring a healthy microbial milieu could reduce the risk of allergic diseases [139, 140]. A reduction in gut microbiome diversity is associated with an increased risk of atopic diseases [141], while delayed maturation can trigger a genetic predisposition to asthma, characterized by a decrease in microbial diversity and an overgrowth of opportunistic pathogens [142]. Stiemsma et al. observed that the gut microbiota dysbiosis in children diagnosed with asthma was already evident at 3 months [143]. Colonization of the oropharynx in 1‐month‐old infants with bacteria such as Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, or Moraxella catarrhalis is significantly associated with an increased risk of childhood asthma [144]. Clostridium difficile colonization in 1‐month‐old infants is linked to the occurrence of wheezing and asthma within the first 6 years of life. In infants at risk for asthma, genera such as Veillonella, Rothia, Bacteroides, and Faecalibacterium are typically diminished within the first 100 days after birth. Early colonization of the upper respiratory tract by the Moraxella genus is associated with respiratory infections, and in children aged 6 to 17 with asthma, nasal secretions show a significant activation of eosinophils, particularly in the presence of Moraxella colonization [145]. Asthma patients may experience alterations in mucosal immunity due to corticosteroid interference, leading to a reduction in beneficial bacteria such as Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus and an overgrowth of pathogens [142]. Early gut microbiota may prevent asthma airway inflammation by modulating the Th1/Th2 balance [146]; murine studies have shown that commensal bacteria like Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Bacteroides can alleviate certain tissue inflammatory responses, including those of the airways, by inducing the production of Treg cells, reducing the release of Th1 pro‐inflammatory factors, and enhancing the production of Th2 and Th17 cytokines [147, 148]. Supplementation with beneficial gut microbiota can correspondingly improve lung diseases [148, 149]. Furthermore, feeding pregnant mice a high‐fiber or acetate diet can protect their offspring from allergic airway diseases through the Foxp3/Treg pathway [150, 151].
Respiratory infections
Respiratory infections have consistently posed a significant threat to global human health and incurred considerable medical expenses [152]. Germ‐free rodents exhibit weakened responses to the influenza virus [153, 154]. Mice lacking SFB in the gastrointestinal tract had higher bacterial loads, lung inflammation, and mortality rates compared to those harboring them [155]. Collectively, these findings demonstrate the influence of the gut microbiome against respiratory infections.
The misuse of antibiotics leading to dysbiosis of the gut microbiota may facilitate the translocation of potential pathogens from the intestines to the oropharynx, potentially causing respiratory tract infections [156]. A recent study of the relationship between gut microbiome imbalance and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection found that the gut microbiota of children with COVID‐19 had significantly higher uniformity than the control group, with an increase in the phyla Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes and a decrease in Proteobacteria. Compared with healthy controls, children with COVID‐19 had a higher relative abundance of conditional pathogens and environmental bacteria, significantly reduced bacterial diversity, and a lower relative abundance of beneficial symbionts [157]. Alterations in the composition of the gut bacterial community, rather than overall diversity, were observed in patients infected with the H1N1 influenza virus, with an increased abundance of Bacteroidetes and a corresponding decrease in Firmicutes [158]. Grayson et al. found that ingestion of the nonabsorbable antibiotic streptomycin led to a significant decrease in gut microbial diversity but no significant impact on lung microbiota; however, decreased diversity in the gut microbiome was associated with a marked increase in mortality from respiratory viral infections [159]. Oral administration of rats with metronidazole sulfate caused an imbalance in anaerobic bacteria, followed by an infection with influenza virus [160], suggesting that an imbalance in gut anaerobic bacteria exacerbates the pathological damage caused by the influenza virus. Moreover, significant differences in microbial communities were observed between patients infected with the H7N9 influenza virus and healthy individuals, with significant reductions in the abundance of the genera Eubacterium, Ruminococcus, Bifidobacterium, and Lactobacillus [161, 162].
Furthermore, a balanced gut microbiota enhances the anti‐infective ability of pulmonary tuberculosis patients and reduces the susceptibility to Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) [163, 164]. It is currently believed that this may be due to a significant decrease in appetite of the patients, reducing the overall intake of dietary fiber, resulting in the selection of Bacteroides genus that can utilize host mucopolysaccharides more effectively, and reducing the number of Prevotella genus in the gut [165]. The relative abundance of the Prevotella genus positively correlating with the number of activated CD4+ and CD8+ cells indicates that the enriched Prevotella in the gut reflects a certain level of immune function in the body [166]. Prevotella can use pyruvate as a substrate to synthesize SCFAs through the acetyl‐CoA pathway, which is processed in the gastrointestinal tract and transported to the liver for metabolism [167]. The final metabolites are partially transported to the lungs through the gut–lung axis via peripheral circulation, affecting the differentiation and maturation of immune cells in the lung tissue and participating in the regulation of lung inflammation [168]. Hu et al. used metagenomic sequencing to analyze the characteristics of the gut microbiota in pulmonary tuberculosis patients and identified 39 pathways related to biosynthesis, confirming the significant changes in the gut microbiota and metabolic functions [169]. There is a trend of a significant decrease in SCFA‐producing bacteria such as Prevotella and a significant absence of five related pathways in pulmonary tuberculosis patients. At the same time, the decrease in the abundance of these bacteria reflects the aggravation of systemic inflammation and impairment of host immunity [170]. However, the mechanisms still await further in‐depth investigations.
Lung cancer
Studies have demonstrated that the gut microbiota plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis, progression, and modulation of immune responses to therapy in lung cancer. Compared to healthy counterparts, lung cancer patients exhibit a distinct gut microbial composition with significant reductions in the Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, and Bacteroidetes and notable increases in other phyla, including Proteobacteria [171]. Multiple investigations have confirmed significant differences in the gut microbiota between lung cancer patients and healthy subjects, suggesting the possibility of gut microbiome being a biomarker for diagnosis and treatment in precision oncology [172, 173, 174, 175]. Common cancer‐associated bacteria such as Clostridium, Escherichia coli, Fusobacterium, Porphyromonas, and Bacteroides were identified in lung cancer patients, with an overabundance of Clostridium thought to activate carcinogens and be associated with tumorigenesis [176]. Lung cancer patients display dysbiosis with reduced relative abundance of Actinobacteria and Bifidobacterium and an increased relative abundance of Enterococci, with metabolomic analyses revealing a decline in the normal gut microbial functions among these patients [177, 178].
Furthermore, gut microbiota composition varies between different pathological types of lung cancer, with non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients showing a higher relative abundance of Rikenellaceae, Prevotella, Streptococcus, Lactobacillus, Bacteroides, Treponema, and Enterobacteriaceae compared to healthy controls [179]. NSCLC patients also exhibited a reduction in butyrate‐producing bacteria, which are beneficial gut microbes, and butyrate produced by them can impact endothelial angiogenesis in the intestinal microvascular system, inhibiting tumor cell growth [180]. Adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the lungs harbor unique microbial signatures, with the genus Gemmiger and Erysipelatoclostridium enriched in the guts of adenocarcinoma patients and the genera Enterococcus, Veillonella, and Eubacterium eligens enriched in squamous cell carcinoma patients [181, 182]. Another study has identified and validated 13 biomarkers predictive of lung cancer, establishing a specific gut microbial signature curve for the prediction of early‐stage lung cancer (area under the curve = 97.6%) [176]. Aspergillus sydowii promotes lung adenocarcinoma progression by inducing myeloid‐derived suppressor cell (MDSC) expansion and activation through IL‐1β secretion [183]. SFB colonizing the gut can modulate CD4+ T lymphocyte polarization during pulmonary fungal infections and enhance the antifungal response of lung Th17 cells [184]. Additionally, therapeutic strategies targeting the gut microbiome are increasingly considered effective in cancer prevention and treatment improvement, with an increased abundance of Bacteroides ovatus and Bacteroides xylanisolvens enhancing the efficacy of the targeted drug erlotinib in a lung cancer mouse model [185]. The gut microbiome can regulate the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors in tumor patients [186]. Bifidobacterium can also recruit and activate antitumor T cells, promote the production of interferons and pro‐inflammatory cytokines, and facilitate the maturation of dendritic cells, thus enhancing the efficacy of anti‐PD‐L1 monoclonal antibody therapy [187, 188].
Therapeutic strategies targeting the gut–lung axis
Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT)
FMT has a promising impact on modulating the intestinal microbiota of the recipients (Table 2) having inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) [189, 190, 191], or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis [192, 193]. Notably, a decrease in the symptoms of pulmonary hypertension was noted in rats following FMT administration after antibiotic treatment [194]. Interestingly, the encapsulated form of FMT is a promising approach for treating pulmonary hypertension [195]. Nevertheless, FMT bears a risk of severe infection, particularly in immunocompromised patients, with recorded incidents of aggressive E. coli infections; one case resulted in death. Consequently, stringent screening and testing of donors, as well as meticulous processing and preservation of FMT materials, are imperative for different disease contexts (Figure 5). Therefore, FMT application to treat diseases requires careful deliberation [195, 196].
Table 2.
Therapeutic strategies targeting the gutlung axis.
| Therapeutic strategy | Target disease | Underlying mechanisms | Effect and outcomes | PMID |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FMT | COVID‐19 | Intestinal epithelial cells have been identified to express ACE2 receptors. Furthermore, certain gut microbiota can enhance protection against SARS‐CoV‐2 infection through the activation of a CD8 + T cell‐mediated immune response. | The symbiotic relationship of specific gut microbial taxa presents potential for the development of a host‐directed, broad‐spectrum prophylactic strategy against COVID‐19. | 36103991, 34560321, 38635321, 38408636, 38292322, 38034050 |
| Lung cancer | Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been shown to modulate the host's response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. | Clinical trials phase 1/2. | 36177041, 38572783, 38061593, 36891304, 35735103, 35217892 | |
| COPD | FMT alleviated hallmarker feature of COPD including inflammation, alveolar destruction, impaired lung function. | Effective in COPD Ⅲ‐Ⅳ mice. | 38331563, 38459479, 32681029 | |
| Asthma | The administration of fecal material from mice fed with either curcumin or tetrahydrocurcumin resulted in a shift in the intestinal bacterial composition, characterized by a decreased Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio and lower relative abundances of pro‐inflammatory bacterial taxa such as Proteobacteria, Intestinimonas, unclassified Ruminococcaceae, and Lachnospiraceae. | FMT may have therapeutic potential for asthma treatment. | 34116562, 38687096, 38513836 | |
| Diet | COPD | Fruits and vegetables are rich in vitamins C, D, and E and β‐carotene, all of which have antioxidant and anti‐inflammatory properties and protect against oxidative stress. | A diet with pro‐inflammatory characteristics may be associated with an elevated risk of early chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) onset and further deterioration of pulmonary function, highlighting the role of dietary interventions in promoting respiratory health and potentially mitigating COPD progression. | 35889798, 3880263, 38794757, 38724980, 38687147, 38674827, 38613061, 3859152, 38531087, 38474867 |
| Asthma | Dietary intake of fiber‐rich foods has been associated with the suppression of airway inflammation, decreased numbers of GATA3 + Th2 cells, and a reduction in FcɛRIα+ eosinophils, suggesting a therapeutic potential in the management of asthma. | Asthma exacerbations may be ameliorated by dietary interventions that incorporate an increased intake of natural fibers, such as pectins. | 38757128, 38844482 | |
| Lung cancer | A positive association has been observed between the consumption of red and processed meats and an elevated risk of lung cancer incidence. | An inverse association has been reported between the dietary intake of fruits, vegetables, breakfast cereals, and fiber and the risk of lung cancer. | 34582558, 34558660, 31319002 | |
| COVID‐19 | Adoption of a plant‐based diet has been associated with enhancements in immune function, including increased antibody production, lymphocyte proliferation, and a reduction in oxidative stress markers. | A plant‐based diet index has been correlated with a reduced risk of hospitalization among patients with COVID‐19. | 38798209, 38744929, 38741446, 38618542 | |
| Probiotics | Lung cancer | Antimutagenic property; heavy metal detoxification; modulating immune system; managing lung diseases. | Oral probiotics supplements in combination with checkpoint inhibitors may improve the outcome in lung cancer patients. | 38755052, 38736182, 38566102, 38504436, 38471270, 38336927, 38196128, 38018652, 37999101 |
| COPD | Immunomodulation: TGF‐β/IL‐4/IL‐10 (decreased); IL‐17/TNF‐α/IL‐2/IL‐10/IFN‐γ (increased). | Genetically modified probiotics secrete some beneficial molecules that might be utilized to treat COPD and oral probiotics prevent AECOPD. | 38794746, 38635003, 38464560, 38457591, 38444395, 38249987, 37429232, 37164760, 36353491 | |
| Asthma | Probiotic supplementation has been shown to modulate the Th1/Th2 cell equilibrium, augment regulatory T cell populations, attenuate inflammatory responses, and regulate the composition of the gut microbiota. | The adjunctive administration of probiotics has been associated with the alleviation of asthmatic manifestations, potentially through modulation of the gut microbiome and alterations in the serum metabolomic profile. | 8510161, 38710644, 38687096, 38687061, 38674852, 38254421, 38235259, 38054607, 1127958, 26424567, 17204726, 32504615 | |
| COVID‐19 | Lactobacillus rhamnosus enhanced the T cell‐mediated immune response in infected mice; next‐generation probiotics products are linked to the regulation of intracellular calcium levels. | Probiotics have demonstrated potential in reducing mortality, ameliorating gastrointestinal and systemic clinical manifestations, and decreasing the incidence of respiratory failure in patients with COVID‐19. | 34508775, 37402856, 36991513, 35487886, 32673604, 38732597 |
Figure 5.

Therapeutic strategies targeting the gut–lung axis. The prospective therapeutic strategies targeting the gut–lung axis include FMT, probiotics, diet, and bioaccumulation of therapeutic drugs.
Diet
The dietary pattern is a critical determinant in modulating gut microbial communities (Table 2). Both clinical and experimental evidence underscores the profound effect of diet on gut microbial diversity. The swift response of gut microbiota to dietary shifts is noteworthy, with individuals experiencing marked variations in microbial composition within a day after transitioning between animal‐ and plant‐based diets [197, 198, 199]. While dietary habits are known to influence the β diversity of gut microbes, α diversity seems less affected and shows a substantial individual variation among those on diets rich in animal products [200, 201]. Epidemiological data suggests that diets high in pro‐inflammatory components are often linked to increased smoking habits, COPD, and impaired lung functions [202, 203]. Dietary components can influence the composition of the gut microbiota; for example, cheese may increase Bifidobacteria and decrease Bacteroides and Clostridia [204]; artificial sweeteners increase Proteobacteria and E. coli and decrease Bacteroides, Clostridia, and total aerobic bacteria [205]; foods high in polyphenols increase Bifidobacteria, Lactobacillus, F. prausnitzii, Roseburia, Bacteroides vulgatus, and A. muciniphila and decrease E. coli and Enterobacter cloacae [206]; and high‐fat diet increases Firmicutes and decreases Bacteroidetes [207]. Diets heavy in calories have been associated with exacerbated LPS‐induced pneumonia through disruption of gut microbiota and Th17/Treg balance [208]. Conversely, dietary fiber from fruits, grains, and cereals shows a potential protective role against lung cancer, with whole grains demonstrating a similar association [209]. It is anticipated that future preventative and supportive disease management could hinge on dietary adjustments by modifying the intake of specific foods (e.g., unprocessed dairy or fibrous foods) or lifestyle alterations (e.g., reducing sedentary behavior, obesity, and tobacco use; Figure 5).
Probiotics
Emerging research highlights the significance of gut microbiota alteration in managing and mitigating pulmonary conditions (Table 2). Investigations have shed light on the promising benefits of probiotic regimens in conjunction with anti‐PD‐1 treatment for progressive or relapsed non‐small cell lung cancer [210]. Probiotics stimulate immune cells (macrophages, dendritic cells, neutrophils, and NK cells) and enhance phagocytosis, cytokine release, and Th1/Th17 polarization in the gut mucosal regions [211, 212]. Conversely, certain probiotic strains help in upregulating Tregs, IL‐10, and TGF‐β and augmenting IgA production, as well as reinforcing the intestinal barrier by modulating dendritic cells [213, 214, 215]. Future research will pivot on the supplementation period, delivery method, dosage, and follow‐up duration for specific probiotic strains [216, 217].
Bioaccumulation of therapeutic drugs
Numerous pharmaceuticals tend to concentrate on specific gut bacterial species, which remain chemically unaltered by these microbes. Such bioaccumulation can decrease drug potency, alter gut microbiome composition and functionalities, and regulate the physiological state and metabolic exchanges in the host. Drug bioaccumulation by gut bacteria influences therapeutic outcomes in two primary ways: first, by diminishing drug bioavailability and, second, by altering metabolite profiles [218].
Moreover, there is a growing body of evidence indicating the effect of gut microbiota on host responses to chemotherapy and other cancer treatments, leading to three core clinical implications: enhancing drug effectiveness, negating anticancer benefits, and inducing drug‐related toxicity [219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224]. Gut microbes have shown a strong correlation with the pharmacological impacts of various chemotherapeutic agents (like 5‐fluorouracil, cyclophosphamide, and methotrexate) and emerging immunotherapies such as anti‐PD‐L1 and anti‐CTLA‐4 treatments [188, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229]. It is anticipated that clinical practitioners and translational researchers will make substantial advancements in this domain, potentially integrating these insights into forthcoming clinical trials.
Section summary
There exists a significant and intricate interplay between the gut and respiratory systems, with dysbiosis of the gut microbiota implicated in the etiology and progression of common respiratory diseases such as asthma, COPD, lung cancer, and respiratory infections (Figure 6). Interventions targeting the gut–lung axis provide effective strategies in the prevention and treatment of various respiratory diseases. Our understanding of the mechanisms underpinning the gut–lung axis is still in its infancy, and the causal relationship between pulmonary diseases and gut microbiota requires further elucidation.
Figure 6.

The gut–lung axis: A bidirectional interplay in health and disease. The gut–lung axis features complex interactions among bacteria, fungi, and viruses across organs. Links between the gut and lungs are evident in COPD, asthma, lung infections, and cancer. COPD involves lung inflammation, immune cell infiltration, and elevated pro‐inflammatory mediators like TNF‐α and IL‐6, leading to oxidative stress and hypoxia. These mediators and cigarette smoke can affect the gut, worsening immune infiltration and epithelial damage. Chronic gut inflammation alters microbiota, reducing beneficial bacteria. Impaired gut function raises pro‐inflammatory mediator levels, diminishes nutrient absorption and antioxidant capacity, and weakens pathogen defense, worsening lung diseases.
As of now, research on the gut–lung axis microbiota faces two primary challenges: differentiating between causal relationships and mere associations, and accurately delineating the temporal dynamics involved. Furthermore, although culture‐independent techniques have significantly improved microbial identification, they have not obviated the need to isolate and culture potential opportunistic pathogens or beneficial probiotics for impact assessment. Many components of the microbiota remain difficult to culture effectively, complicating these analyses. As a result, discerning whether observed alterations in the microbiota are causative factors or consequences of disease processes remains challenging. Most experimental evidence to date has concentrated on the role of gut microbiota in the onset of lung diseases, with less emphasis on its impact during disease progression. This underscores the urgent need for comprehensive longitudinal studies in both human and animal models to correlate microbiota dynamics with the progression of chronic lung diseases. Investigations into microbiota interventions during lung disease are crucial for enhancing our understanding and facilitating the development of novel therapeutic strategies. Increasingly, microbiota research is focused on identifying functional clusters within microbial communities. Given the significant taxonomic diversity across various sites and among individuals, as well as the extensive range of species within the microbiota, it is likely that species overlap occurs in terms of microbial interactions and the metabolic by‐products they produce. Consequently, advanced “omics” techniques are essential to identify these functional clusters, thereby advancing our understanding of the gut–lung microbiota interplay and its collective impact on human health and disease progression.
GUT–HEART AXIS
Overview
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is one of the most notable diseases threatening human health globally. CVD mainly consists of atherosclerosis, hypertension, heart failure, and cardiomyopathy. It can be influenced by multiple factors such as lifestyle, genetics, and age [230].
In recent years, gut microbiome has been shown to have a strong link to cardiovascular diseases. Similar to cardiovascular diseases, the intestinal microbiome is also influenced by diet, lifestyle, and age [231]. These influences can alter the composition of intestinal bacteria and their metabolites, which impact the cardiovascular system [232]. Hazen et al. identified an enterobacterial metabolite, TMAO, predicting cardiovascular disease risk through metabolomics [233]. When changes in the gut microbiome of aged and young mice were analyzed, the composition of the gut microbiome was found to change with increasing age. These altered microbiomes impair cardiovascular functions through TMAO [234] and aggravate cardiovascular disease. The circulating levels of TMAO correlate with age, and high TMAO levels induce an imbalance in oxidative stress, leading to endothelial senescence [235].
Thus, the gut–heart axis is an important pathway through which gut microbiome influences CVD. This axis is influenced by age, diet, and other factors affecting CVD. It is an important direction in CVD research. Herein, we discuss the latest studies elucidating the effects of gut microbiome and its metabolites on CVD development, mechanisms, and therapeutic approaches.
The role of the gut–heart axis in various CVDs
Microbiome metabolites like TMAO, phenylacetylglutamine (PAGIn), and SCFAs are strongly associated with CVD [236]. We summarize some of the mechanisms by which these metabolites, including N,N,N‐trimethyl‐5‐aminovaleric acid (TMAVA), affect CVD in Figure 7 and enumerate the studies related to the gut–cardiac axis in atherosclerosis (AS), heart failure, hypertension, and cardiomyopathy.
Figure 7.

Gut microbiome metabolites (TMAO, PAGIn, SCFA, and TMAVA) influence CVD development through various mechanisms. TMA produced by the gut microbiome is converted in the liver to produce TMAO, which aggravates AS by promoting vascular endothelial cell pyroptosis through the induction of oxidative stress and the production of NLRP3. PAGIn is another gut metabolite that accelerates thrombosis and thus exacerbates AS. PAGIy and BCAA are two bacterial metabolites that are strongly associated with cardiomyopathy. In addition, SCFA produced by the gut microbiome was found to influence the progression of hypertension via GPR43/GPR109a. Finally, the bacterial metabolite TMAVA, which can lead to impaired energy metabolism and thus affect heart failure. Created with BioRender.com.
Atherosclerosis
The intestinal microbiome of atherosclerosis (AS) patients has significant changes compared to healthy individuals [237]. The gut microbiome is an important regulator of AS. Gut microbiome metabolites like TMAO, PAGIn, and SCFA are the main regulators of cardiovascular effects. TMAO levels, mainly influenced by dietary and genetic factors, strongly and positively correlate with AS disease course and are involved in macrophage cholesterol accumulation and foam cell formation [233, 238]. Recently, a metabolomic approach was used to screen the three metabolites of phosphatidylcholine (TMAO, choline, and betaine) associated with CVD [233]. Dietary supplementation of phosphatidylcholine is converted into trimethylamine (TMA), the precursor of TMAO, by the gut microbiome. TMA is subsequently oxidized in the liver by the flavin monooxygenases (FMO1 and FMO3) to form TMAO, and elevated levels of TMAO accelerate AS development [238]. Treatment with TMA‐producing L. saccharolyticum resulted in elevated serum levels of TMAO and worsening of AS symptoms in ApoE −/− mice [239]. TMAO promotes AS development through a variety of mechanisms. It stimulates reactive oxygen species (ROS) production in the vascular endothelium, induces vascular inflammation, inhibits superoxide dismutase (SOD2), and activates NLRP3 inflammasomes, thereby exacerbating endothelial inflammation and contributing to AS development [240]. In addition, the pro‐AS effect of TMAO is associated with vascular endothelial cell pyroptosis by upregulating succinate dehydrogenase complex B subunit (SDHb) and causing increased ROS levels [241] (Figure 7). TMAO also affects bile acid synthesis, which inhibits intestinal cholesterol retrograde transport, leading to its accumulation in macrophages [242]. This is associated with the exacerbation of AS. Proline/serine‐rich coiled‐coil protein 1 (PSRC1) is a key factor associated with the regulation of immune responses and coronary artery disease (CAD) development. Deficiency of PSRC1 alters the abundance of intestinal TMA‐producing bacteria and hepatic FMO3 expression, which results in elevated plasma TMAO levels, exacerbating atherosclerosis [243]. However, antibiotic treatment clearing the gut microbiome diminished the effect, suggesting a gut microbiome‐dependent regulatory pathway. In addition to the microbiome associated with TMA production, some microbiome, such as Enterobacter aerogenes ZDY01, utilize TMA as a nutrient and reduce plasma TMAO levels [244]. It also promoted bile acid absorption and inhibited the intestinal FXR‐FGF15 axis. This promoted hepatic expression of cytochrome P450 family 7 subfamily A member 1 (Cyp7a1) gene, which accelerated the conversion of cholesterol into bile acids and facilitated reverse cholesterol transport. Thus, E. aerogenes ZDY01 altered plasma TMAO and cholesterol levels and reduced the extent of AS [244].
Apart from the role of TMAO in the communication between gut microbiome and AS, several other gut microbiome metabolites contribute to this process. PAGln has also been closely linked to AS. Its production is related to phenylalanine metabolism by gut microbiome converting phenylalanine via phenylpyruvate decarboxylase (PPDC) and phenylpyruvate: ferredoxin oxidoreductase (PPFOR) pathways to phenylacetic acid (PAA), which enters the liver and combines with glutamine to form PAGln [245]. PAGln is involved in the development of adverse cardiovascular events such as AS by promoting platelet reactivity and thrombosis through adrenergic receptors [246]. Similar to PAGIn, TMAO can also lead to the formation of a thrombus, thus affecting AS. SCFAs, produced by gut microbiome metabolism, are also important signaling molecules in the gut–heart axis. Propionate (PA) acts as a mitigating factor in AS by increasing IL‐10 expression and decreasing the expression of small intestinal cholesterol transporter Niemann‐Pick C1‐like 1 (NPC1L1) [247], leading to a decrease in plasma cholesterol levels. Similarly, butyrate‐producing bacteria also have a protective role in AS [248]. Thus, altering gut microbiome metabolism can ameliorate AS development through the gut–heart axis.
Myocardial injury
Cardiomyopathy is a myocardial lesion caused by different factors, mainly myocardial hypertrophy and ventricular dilatation. It is an important risk factor for heart failure. The gut microbiome of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and dilated cardiomyopathy differs significantly from that of healthy individuals [249], suggesting a definite link between cardiomyopathy and gut microbiome. Both of these heart diseases are caused by myocardial lesions due to different reasons. In this research, 16S rRNA gene sequencing revealed a significant increase in strains of Proteobacteria in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and dilated cardiomyopathy. In contrast, previous studies have shown that Proteobacteria is strongly associated with several CVDs, including AS [250]. Current studies have not clarified the key causative organisms and pathogenic mechanisms of these two cardiomyopathies, which remains a worthy research question. In diabetic cardiomyopathy (DCM) mice, a decrease in the diversity of the gut microbiome and an increase in the abundance of Lachnospiraceae and Clostridiales, associated with the production of BCAAs, were found [251]. It has been shown that increased intestinal BCAAs in type I diabetic mice with diabetic cardiomyopathy led to increased expression of the cardiac BCAA transporter protein LAT1 via an intestinal‐hepatic‐heart axis. This results in the presence of excess BCAA in the heart, which leads to mTOR signaling‐mediated mitochondrial damage and cardiomyocyte apoptosis [252]. Myocardial ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury is also a risk factor for cardiac dysfunction. Myocardial I/R injury leads to gut barrier dysfunction, which increases the likelihood of bacterial translocation, leading to an increased inflammatory response, and myocardial I/R injury, which is attenuated after antibiotic treatment [253]. This evidence suggests a strong link between gut microbiome and myocardial injury.
Heart failure
Heart failure (HF), primarily characterized by a decrease in the pumping function of the heart, can be caused by a variety of myocardial injury factors. The development of heart failure is closely linked to the gut microbiome. Heart failure causes the heart to pump less blood, leading to gut ischemia. Reduced intestinal blood flow affects nutrient absorption and causes gut dysfunction [254]. Using 16S rRNA gene sequencing, a reduction in intestinal SCFA and tryptophan‐producing bacteria was observed after cardiac stress loading in mice. Dysregulation of the gut microbiome caused cardiac remodeling and dysfunction in a T cell‐dependent manner, whereas tryptophan and cardiac AhR exhibited significant cardioprotective effects [255].
Microbial‐derived metabolites are also strongly associated with the progression of heart failure. TMAO level is strongly associated with the prognosis of heart failure [256]. In a mouse model, TMAO induced myocardial fibrosis and cardiac hypertrophy through the TGF‐β1/Smad3 pathway [257], suggesting a role for TMAO in heart failure. Myocardial hypertrophy is an important risk factor for heart failure. In patients with heart failure, the level of the intestinal epithelial secretory factor, FGF19, is elevated, which promotes myocardial hypertrophy, causing heart failure [258]. TMAVA has also been associated with the prognosis of patients with heart failure. TMAVA inhibits carnitine synthesis and fatty acid oxidation (FAO), which leads to metabolic reprogramming of the cardiomyocytes and causes impairment of myocardial energy metabolism [259] (Figure 7). Similar to TMAVA, TMAO can cause mitochondrial dysfunction and impaired myocardial energy metabolism, leading to the development of heart failure [260]. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is one type of heart failure. Using metabolomics, reduced levels of indole‐3‐propionic acid (IPA) in a mouse model of HFpEF were observed, suggesting a potential protective role for IPA in HFpEF. The heart failure‐protective effects of IPA are mainly mediated by AhR stimulation of sirtuin3 (SIRT3) expression as well as inhibition of NNMT (nicotinamide N‐methyltransferase) with an increase in NAD+ levels [261]. In addition, gut microbiota‐derived kynurenine, a metabolite associated with heart failure, also contributes to the progression of myocardial fibrosis through AhR activation [262]. Myocardial fibrosis after myocardial infarction is a risk factor for heart failure, and butyrate‐producing bacteria in the gut play an important role in this process. Butyrate inhibits histone deacetylase (HDAC) activity, which promotes tissue repair after myocardial infarction [263]. However, the reduction of butyrate‐producing bacteria promotes myocardial fibrosis and cardiac dysfunction after myocardial infarction.
Hypertension
Hypertension is a multifactorial cardiovascular disease. A recent study compared the gut microbiome composition in 41 healthy controls, 56 prehypertension patients, and 99 essential hypertension patients. The results showed a reduced abundance of SCFA‐producing bacteria F. prausnitzii and Roseburia in prehypertensive and hypertensive patients. Hypertensive patients' feces‐transplanted germ‐free mice developed elevated blood pressure [264], indicating an important role for the gut microbiome in hypertension development [265]. High‐salt diet is one of the risk factors for hypertension. The abundance of Lactobacillus murinus is reduced in people and mice given a high‐salt diet [266]. Bacteroides fragilis inhibited high salt diet‐induced intestinal‐derived corticosterone production through its metabolite arachidonic acid, which attenuated hypertension symptoms [267]. Modulating steroid hormones could be one of the ways how gut microbiome affects hypertension. In addition, other gut microbiome metabolites like TMAO and SCFA also affect hypertension symptoms. Plasma TMAO levels are elevated in hypertensive patients, and TMAO contributes to Ang II‐induced hypertension by promoting vasoconstriction [268]. SCFAs are produced by the fermentation of fibers by the gut microbiome, and there is a close link between them and the cardiovascular system. The cardioprotective effects of SCFAs are mediated through their receptor GPR43/GPR109a, and the reduction of SCFAs leads to a weakening of this signaling pathway causing hypertension [269]. Thus, the link between SCFAs in feces, SCFAs absorbed into the bloodstream, and cardiovascular disease deserves further clarification. In addition, cardiovascular regulation by gut microbiome involves modulation of the immune responses. Celiac disease (CeD) is an autoinflammatory bowel disease that leads to IL‐17 release from intestinal cells and activation of NLRP3 inflammasomes [270]. The entry of such inflammatory factors into the circulatory system leads to several problems, including increased cardiovascular risk and arterial hypertension.
CVD treatment strategies based on the gut–heart axis
Currently found therapeutic means for this axis are mainly through the dietary approach, probiotics, drugs, and other factors affecting the gut microbiome and its metabolites to achieve the purpose of treating cardiovascular diseases. Dietary modifications are one of the factors that influence the gut microbiome composition and the production of metabolites. It is well known that high‐fat and high‐salt diets are important risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Treatment of cardiovascular diseases by improving diet is promising because of the cardiovascular‐protective properties of the Mediterranean diet [271]. The intake of high‐fiber foods coupled with the metabolic effects of the gut microbiome leads to an increase in the production of several SCFAs with cardioprotective effects. After high‐fiber food feeding, the abundance of acetate‐producing bacteria in the intestine of mice was increased, and symptoms of cardiac hypertrophy and hypertension were ameliorated [272]. Moreover, cardiac hypertrophy symptoms and hypertension were also significantly improved in mice through acetate supplementation [272]. Similarly, exogenous supplementation with propionic acid has significantly improved aortic aneurysm development [273]. In addition to altering ingested foods, fasting was proven to be cardiovascular protective. Intermittent fasting (IF) reduces blood pressure by altering the gut microbiome, and the effect is mainly mediated through bile acid signaling [274]. The effects of fasting also include immunomodulatory effects on Th1 cells and dendritic cells, which exert a blood pressure‐lowering effect [275]. Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet is currently an internationally recognized diet for the treatment of hypertension. The DASH diet has a better antihypertensive effect when combined with fasting [276].
Probiotics are used to produce cardiovascular protective effects, mainly by altering the gut microbiome composition. Lactobacillus rhamnosus and Bifidobacterium lactis are two probiotics with antihypertensive effects. They exert their blood pressure‐lowering effects by affecting lipid metabolism, vascular smooth muscle contraction, and steroid hormone synthesis [276]. Treatment of hypertensive rats with Lactobacillus has significantly decreased blood pressure [277]. Interestingly, through fecal histology studies, F. prausnitzii was found to be significantly associated with CVD [278], and it has significant anti‐atherosclerotic effects [278]. Therefore, F. prausnitzii supplementation is a promising probiotic therapy for atherosclerosis. A. muciniphila is significantly reduced in mice with aortic aneurysms, and its oral administration attenuated aortic aneurysm development [279]. The main mechanisms are inhibition of inflammation, restoration of structural diversity of the gut microbiome, and regulation of Lactobacillus functions [279]. Oral administration of Saccharomyces boulardii improved the ejection function of the heart in patients with heart failure [280].
Section summary
The gut–heart axis is a signaling axis for the interactions between the gut microbiome and CVD. The development of CVD affects the composition of the gut microbiome, and in turn, the gut microbiome modulates CVD progression. In a healthy condition, the gut microbiome and cardiovascular system maintain homeostasis, which is disrupted in the presence of certain pathogenic factors like high‐fat, high‐salt diets and smoking, leading to the development of various CVDs. Gut microbiome affects CVD development mainly through its metabolites, immunomodulation, and hormonal regulation. Gut microbiome and its metabolites could be either beneficial or harmful. For example, TMAO is harmful to the cardiovascular system, while SCFAs are cardioprotective. Therefore, investigating how gut microbiome regulates CVD will help in the development of novel therapeutic strategies. The main treatments for CVD targeting the gut–heart axis include dietary interventions and probiotic supplementation. This would allow for the intervention of CVD in patients through dietary improvements or probiotic beverages. However, most of the probiotics or medications currently available for CVD are in the research or clinical trial stage. Therefore, further research is needed to determine the effectiveness and safety of these interventions. The development of therapeutic strategies for CVD targeting the gut–heart axis is important and promising.
GUT–BONE AXIS
Bone homeostasis relies on an equilibrium between bone‐resorbing osteoclasts and bone‐forming osteoblasts, a process known as “bone remodeling” [281]. Various factors contribute to osteoporosis, with one of them being the gut microbiota [282]. The gut microbiota regulates bone metabolism by influencing multiple bone‐related factors to operate the “gut–bone” axis [283] (Figure 8).
Figure 8.

Potential mechanisms by which gut microbiota regulates bone metabolism. The gut microbiota, particularly probiotics, promotes the production and/or absorption of nutrients (such as calcium, and vitamins D, B, and K) to maintain bone health. Additionally, the gut microbiota generates short‐chain fatty acids (SCFAs), polyamines, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and extracellular vesicles; influences the balance between Tregs and Th17 cells; releases estrogen from estrogen receptors (ERs) through sterolbiome enzymes; and mediates the effects of intermittent parathyroid hormone (iPTH) via SCFAs. All of these mechanisms regulate bone remodeling by affecting the differentiation of osteoblast and osteoclast precursors, ultimately modulating bone metabolism.
Gut microbiota is closely related to bone
For over a decade, the gut microbiota has been found to be closely related to bone. Germ‐free mice exhibit a higher bone mass and fewer osteoclasts than conventionally raised mice; introducing normal gut microbiota normalizes the increased bone mass [284]. Moreover, gut microbiota depletion improves bone mass, bone microstructure, and bone strength in ovariectomized (OVX) mice. This effect is mediated by the G‐protein‐coupled bile acid receptor [285]. In the China Multi‐Ethnic Cohort study, “altitude‐microbiota‐quantitative ultrasound index” analysis revealed a negative correlation among high‐altitude exposure, gut microbiota, and bone mineral density (BMD); additionally, it identified a mediating effect of Catenibacterium in the correlation [286]. A Mendelian randomization analysis using data from the TwinsUK, LifeLines‐DEEP, and UK Biobank cohorts showed a causal link between gut microbiota and bone development, highlighting a specific causative bacterial taxa (order_Clostridiales and family_Lachnospiraceae) [287]. Other reviews have explored the relationship between gut microbiota and bone [288, 289], which will not be further elaborated here.
Potential mechanisms by which gut microbiota regulates bone metabolism
Nutrient absorption
Modification in the abundance, diversity, and composition of gut microbiota impact dietary intake, particularly nutrient absorption, and subsequently influences bone metabolism via the gut–bone axis [290]. For instance, calcium plays a critical role in maintaining optimal bone health in humans [291]. Supplementation with probiotics, especially Lactobacillus strains, enhanced calcium transport and uptake in mice [292]. Moreover, a human trial involving postmenopausal women revealed an increase in serum calcium levels after consuming Lactobacillus helveticus fermented milk [293]. Supplementation with galactooligosaccharides (prebiotics) heightened calcium and magnesium absorption with an improved BMD [294]. The mechanisms through which probiotics and prebiotics enhance calcium absorption and bioavailability include the upregulation of calcium transporter expression, increased cell density, intestinal crypt depth, and blood flow, as well as alterations in the intestinal microbiota composition and integrity [291].
The gut microbiota also regulates vitamin D metabolism, which in turn significantly influences the absorption of calcium and phosphorus in the gut, as well as bone metabolism [295]. Germ‐free mice exhibit impaired vitamin D metabolism, but after gut microbiota colonization, levels of 1, 25‐dihydroxy vitamin D and calcium were restored [296]. Oral supplementation with probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri increases circulating levels of 25‐hydroxyvitamin D [297]. Vitamin D receptor is prominently expressed in the gastrointestinal tract, where vitamin D activates its receptor to maintain the intestinal epithelial barrier and promotes gut microbiota eubiosis [298].
The gut microbiota members are essential for synthesizing vitamins B and K as well [299], both of which are vital for maintaining bone health [300]. Vitamin K is instrumental in bone metabolism by contributing to the γ‐carboxylation of tissue‐specific vitamin K‐dependent proteins like osteocalcin [301], which stimulates the xenobiotic receptor on osteoblasts and influences bone remodeling and bone mineralization processes, ultimately leading to an increased bone strength [302]. Inadequate intake of vitamin B has been observed in hip fracture patients; several observational studies have also demonstrated a link between various B vitamins (B2, B6, folate, or B12) and a reduced risk of osteoporosis or hip fractures [303].
Metabolites
The gut microbiota beneficially influences distal organs by generating metabolites known as “postbiotics.” Changes in gut microbiota‐related metabolites are associated with osteoporosis development and progression [304]. For example, the gut microbiota ferments indigestible carbohydrates in the diet, leading to the production of SCFAs (propionic acid, butyric acid, and valeric acid) in the intestinal lumen [305]. The SCFAs can lower pH in the intestine, thereby increasing the solubility and subsequent absorption of minerals like calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium. Propionate and butyrate reduce the expression of osteoclast‐related genes TRAF6 and NFATc1, suppress osteoclast differentiation and bone resorption, and notably enhance bone mass in OVX mice [306]. Moreover, valeric acid serves as a protective agent against postmenopausal bone loss by impeding the NF‐κB signaling pathway to inhibit osteoclast differentiation [307].
Polyamines, another kind of metabolite, are mainly synthesized by the gut microbiota through transamination of amino acids, particularly arginine, with the aid of catalytic enzymes [308]. The polyamines enhance the expression of osteogenic genes, such as alkaline phosphatase (ALP), runt‐related transcription factor 2 (RUNX2), osteopontin, and osteocalcin (OCN), thereby promoting extracellular matrix mineralization and osteogenesis in human bone marrow‐derived mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) [309]. Furthermore, polyamines act as inhibitors of osteoclastogenesis; for example, regular consumption of polyamine‐rich Saccharomyces cerevisiae S631 prevents osteoclastic activation and bone loss in OVX mice [310]. Arginine, as one of the precursors for polyamine synthesis, is associated with the “gut–bone” axis [311]. Lachnospiraceae contributed to bone mechanoadaptation in mice by producing l‐citrulline and converting it into l‐arginine [311]. The l‐arginine boosts bone mechanoadaptation by activating a positive feedback loop involving nitric oxide and calcium in osteocytes [311].
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is another vital metabolite involved in gut microbiota‐mediated bone remodeling. It is generated through the breakdown of cysteine by sulfate‐reducing bacteria [312]. H2S is essential for bone formation and development of the postnatal skeleton, as it supports the self‐renewal and osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs via the Wnt/β‐catenin signaling pathway. Insufficient levels of H2S result in a persistent osteoporotic phenotype characterized by compromised BMSCs and impaired bone formation [313].
Immunomodulation
The communication between the gut microbiota and the host immune system starts during infancy. According to the theory of “Osteoimmunology” [314, 315], a balance between Tregs and Th17 cells is crucial for maintaining bone homeostasis. Treg cells suppress osteoclast formation from monocytes and induce CD8+ T cells to generate the Wnt ligand, Wnt10b, which promotes osteoblast generation [316]. In contrast, Th17 cells induce pro‐inflammatory cytokines and inhibit anti‐inflammatory factors, which promote osteoclast formation and thus increase bone loss [316].
The gut microbiota plays a crucial role in influencing the differentiation of naive CD4+ T cells into Tregs or Th17 cells, thereby regulating bone metabolism [316]. For example, Bacillus clausii significantly enhances the population of CD4+ Foxp3+ Treg cells while reducing the proportion of CD4+ Rorγt+ Th17 cells in the bone marrow, thereby preventing bone loss induced by OVX in mice [317]. On the other hand, SFB promotes the expansion of Th17 cells and the production of IL17 in the gut [318], while Clostridia has shown significant advantages in enhancing Treg cell populations [319]. In addition, various bacterial species have the potential to modulate the Tregs and/or Th17 cells, as mentioned in other published reviews [283, 320].
Endocrine system
The term “sterolbiome” describes a cluster of gut microbiota that alters cholesterol‐derived compounds, thereby playing a direct role in regulating the levels of sex steroids in the host [321, 322]. The sterolbiome contains enzymes such as β‐glucuronidase, β‐glucosidase, hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase, and sulfatase, which release estrogen from its receptors and enhance its reabsorption in the gut; consequently, the gut microbiota modulates estrogen metabolism and impact both local and systemic estrogen levels [283]. Estrogens have a direct and indirect role in regulating bone metabolism and functions [323]. Lack of estrogen results in gut microbiota‐driven reduced expression of intestinal tight junction proteins, increased intestinal permeability, and inflammation [324].
Parathyroid hormone (PTH) is also essential for postnatal skeletal development as it regulates calcium balance [325]. Continuous parathyroid hormone (cPTH) is a prevalent factor contributing to osteoporosis and fractures, mediated by interactions with the gut microbiota. SFB facilitates cPTH to amplify the inflammatory effects, leading to elevated levels of TNF+ T cells and Th17 cells in the intestine. These cells subsequently migrate from the intestine to the bone marrow, ultimately contributing to bone loss [326]. On the contrary, intermittent parathyroid hormone (iPTH) induces bone anabolism effects, which depend on the gut microbiota‐produced butyrate. Through its binding to GPR43 on dendritic cells, butyrate facilitates the differentiation of Tregs; subsequently, the Tregs promote Wnt10b expression in CD8 + T cells within the bone marrow, leading to the activation of Wnt‐dependent mechanisms promoting bone formation [327].
Extracellular vesicles
Extracellular vesicles (EVs) released by bacteria serve as a form of inter‐species communication and display distinct characteristics [328]. The gut microbiota acts on bones through these vesicles [283]. For example, introducing gut microbiota from children or the bacterium A. muciniphila prevents OVX‐induced osteoporosis in mice. This protective effect is facilitated by the secretion of EVs [329], which penetrate and gather in bone tissues, suppressing osteoclastogenesis and stimulating osteogenesis [329]. Similarly, EVs from Proteus mirabilis protect against bone loss by promoting mitochondria‐dependent apoptotic pathways in osteoclasts [330].
Probiotics and osteoporosis therapy
Probiotics confer positive health effects when consumed in sufficient amounts. Numerous studies in animal models have demonstrated the potential of probiotics as a therapeutic approach for osteoporosis [331]. For example, products fermented with Lactobacillus, such as kefir and soy skim milk, positively impact bone health [332]. Bifidobacterium prevents OVX‐induced bone loss by hindering the differentiation of pre‐osteoclasts in vitro and expediting the remodeling of callus cartilage in mice with fractures [333, 334].
Only a few studies have reported that probiotics can directly or indirectly influence bone metabolism in humans. For example, supplementation with calcium and short‐chain fructo‐oligosaccharide (a type of prebiotic) in postmenopausal women has been shown to reduce levels of C‐telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX‐I), a marker of bone turnover that reflects bone resorption [335]. Lactobacillus reuteri has been found to reduce bone loss in older women with low BMD [336]. Additionally, Lactobacillus casei Shirota in milk can improve fracture‐related symptoms (such as grip strength, pain, and active range of motion) in elderly patients with distal radius fractures [337]. Furthermore, multispecies probiotic supplementation has favorable effects on bone biomarkers, leading to decreased levels of bone‐specific alkaline phosphatase, CTX‐I, TNFα, and PTH in osteopenic postmenopausal women [338].
Future prospects
The effects of gut microbiota on bone health are influenced by factors such as the host's gender, aging, menopause, and growth [339]. Therefore, integrated analyses and machine learning using multiomics data will provide opportunities to explore the mechanisms by which gut microbiota affects bone health and to advance precision medicine in this area.
Additionally, several novel gut microbiota‐related therapies (e.g., FMT, postbiotics, next‐generation probiotics, and resistant starch) have been reported to be associated with osteoporosis treatment in animal models. For instance, administering postbiotics (cell lysates and supernatants derived from probiotics) to OVX rats can help prevent bone loss [340]. Polysaccharides from resistant starch could enrich the gut microbiota to regulate bone metabolism [341]. A. muciniphila, recognized as a next‐generation probiotic, has been linked to bone physiology and bone formation [329]. These approaches warrant further exploration for their potential application in osteoporosis patients in the future.
GUT–SKIN AXIS
Overview
Microorganisms colonizing the gut and skin play a key role in barrier homeostasis, and gut microbial disorders affect the health of the skin. Herein, we discuss the relationship between the gut microbes and the skin and summarize the effect of gut microorganisms on different skin diseases such as atopic dermatitis (AD), psoriasis (Ps), acne vulgaris, rosacea, dandruff and seborrheic dermatitis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and skin cancer. We reviewed the different mechanisms by which the gut affects the skin to improve our understanding of the gut–skin axis. Finally, we provided an outlook on how to improve skin health by regulating gut microbes based on existing findings, which will inspire the treatment of skin diseases in the future.
Skin and microbiome
The skin, as the largest organ of the organism, serves as a vital interface with the external environment. It encompasses the entire external surface of the organism and establishes connections with the digestive system through oral and anal mucous membranes [342]. It is primarily composed of two layers: epidermis and dermis. The epidermis consists of five layers of keratinocytes: the basal layer, the stratum spinosum, the stratum granulosum, the stratum pellucidum, and the stratum corneum. The dermis is mainly fibrous‐collagenous‐elastic tissue [343]. The skin is the first line of defense against infections and injuries [344]. It possesses a powerful filtering effect, with the surface colonized by commensal microbiota inhibiting the invasion of pathogens [345]. The integrity of the skin and its appendages is the key to maintaining skin barrier homeostasis and preventing infections [346]. As a barrier between the body's internal and external environments, the skin is affected by external factors such as air pollution, ultraviolet rays, sanitary conditions, and so forth, and it is also affected by internal factors such as inflammation, trauma, aging, and systemic diseases [347, 348, 349].
Skin symbiotic microbiota change over time, with neonatal skin microorganisms changing rapidly during the first 6 months of life and slowing down after 12 months. During puberty, the skin microbiome changes considerably due to the action of sex hormones until it stabilizes in adulthood. Adult skin microorganisms are relatively stable and vary greatly from site to site. Skin microbes vary significantly between individuals with different body mass index (BMI) and dietary habits, which may affect the therapeutic effects of skin diseases [350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366]. Therefore, the effect of the gut on skin microbial homeostasis may provide new clinical solutions for the treatment of skin diseases.
Both gut and skin are rich in blood vessels and neural tissues, facilitating communication between the body and the external environment [367]. In clinical practice, gastrointestinal diseases often coincide with skin disorders [368, 369]. Similarly, conditions like psoriasis may be linked to comorbidities like obesity or IBD [370, 371, 372, 373]. Damage to the intestinal barrier leads to the colonization of pathogenic microorganisms, and their metabolites affect the skin's epidermal barrier through circulation [361, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379]. This interconnected and intimate relationship between the gut microbiota and skin is known as the “gut–skin axis” (Figures 9 and 10).
Figure 9.

The crosstalk between gut and skin. The gut and skin epidermal barriers are connected through systemic circulation. Gut (gut microbiome and gut inflammation) and skin (immune imbalance, skin microbiome, and proliferation of keratinocytes) dysbiosis are interconnected and reciprocal.
Figure 10.

Links between skin diseases and the intestinal system. Detailed summaries are described below in the text, categorized by different diseases (AD, psoriasis, acne vulgaris, rosacea, and other skin barrier impairment).
The gut microbiota consists of bacteria, fungi, viruses, and protozoa [380]. Both internal and external factors influence the balance of individual gut microbiota homeostasis, which subsequently affects the health of the skin [381]. For instance, diet affects the host's skin microbiota by influencing the abundance of certain gut microbes [382]. Exogenous supplementation of probiotics ameliorates skin barrier damage caused by excessive phenols produced from gut microbial disorders [361]. Consuming high‐fat diets or alcohol disrupts the equilibrium of gut microbes and causes impaired skin wound healing [383]. Moreover, Bifidobacterium longum modulates tryptophan metabolism and attenuates atopic dermatitis (AD) symptoms. It also contributes to ceramide synthesis and ameliorates skin barrier damage in aging mice [384, 385].
Skin microorganisms consist of bacteria, fungi, viruses, and phages [386]. Each individual's skin hosts a unique microecology [387], which affects skin structure and functions without penetrating the epidermis [388]. In recent years, there has been a growing focus on the role of skin microbes in preserving the skin barrier [389, 390, 391], and several skin diseases can be exacerbated by the imbalance in gut microbes [392, 393, 394]. However, further research is necessary to comprehend the intricate interplay between the gut and skin microbiota.
AD patients exhibit changes in gut microbial diversity and species composition, characterized by a decrease in probiotics and an increase in pathogenic bacteria [395]. Supplementation with exogenous Bifidobacterium longum enhances indole‐3‐carbaldehyde release, which activates AhR receptors. This activation suppresses aberrant Th2 immune responses and alleviates AD symptoms [384]. AhR receptor activation also induces oxidative stress and regulates Tregs. Targeting AhR receptor activation is a strategy employed for the treatment of AD [396]. In addition, an excessive intake of fatty acids along with reduced consumption of fruits and vegetables affects AD progression, influencing Treg cells and Th2‐type immune responses [397]. The reduced abundance of Coprococcus in the gut of AD patients results in a decrease in butyrate production and its anti‐inflammatory effects [398]. Dysbiosis of gut microbiota caused by antibiotics exacerbates AD by reducing the production of SCFAs, resulting in fewer Treg and ILC3 infiltration [399]. Conversely, long‐chain saturated fatty acids (LCSFA) induce an increase in inflammatory ILC3s in the intestine, which migrate to the skin and trigger AD [400]. Furthermore, SCFAs derived from the gut enhance mitochondrial metabolism in keratinocytes, thereby protecting the skin barrier in experimental AD [401].
Psoriasis, a systemic disease characterized by scales and thickening of the skin at any site, is classified as a Th17‐mediated disorder [402]. Apart from skin lesions, inflammation also occurs in other organs. For example, psoriasis patients often show a higher BMI and have hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or IBD [370]. Dysbiosis of gut microbes may trigger immune responses, leading to susceptibility to psoriasis. Psoriasis patients exhibit an increased abundance of Firmicutes and a decreased abundance of Bacteroidetes in their gut [403]. A decreased abundance of Akkermansia and Faecalibacterium in psoriasis patients leads to reduced production of SCFAs, which function as anti‐inflammatory factors and maintain the integrity of the epithelial barrier [404, 405]. Supplementation with Leuconostoc mesenteroides decreases IL‐17 production and alleviates psoriasis by increasing serum deoxycholic acid. Intake of Bifidobacterium or Lactobacillus produces SCFAs and inhibits the IL‐23/Th17 axis‐associated inflammatory factors [406]. In addition, psoriasis decreases gut B‐cells in mice, causes dysbiosis in the gut, and exacerbates enteritis [407].
Acne vulgaris is a multifactorial disease associated with diet, host immune status, and skin microbial homeostasis. The occurrence of acne vulgaris is highly correlated with dietary factors. Acne vulgaris patients have reduced gut microbial diversity and species abundance [408]. Moderately severe acne is strongly associated with a high‐fat and high‐sugar diet. This connection may be explained by the activation of sterol regulatory element‐binding protein 1 (SREBP‐1) due to high fat and glucose, leading to increased fatty acid synthesis in sebum. Therefore, disruption of gut microbes caused by dietary factors affects the progression of acne vulgaris [409, 410].
Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by neurovascular dysregulation and impaired immune functions [411]. The main causes are the release of abnormal inflammatory factors and antimicrobial peptides. There is a certain correlation between rosacea and gut microorganisms, as patients with rosacea are more susceptible to Helicobacter pylori infection, which in turn contributes to the development of gastrointestinal disorders [412]. Moreover, gut microbes' abundance is reduced in rosacea patients, which may affect the disease progression through sulfur metabolism, cobalamin utilization, and carbohydrate transport [413]. Specific foods and beverages exacerbate rosacea symptoms, possibly due to the activation of transient receptor potential cation channels, leading to neurogenic vasodilation [414].
The association between dandruff, seborrheic dermatitis, and gut dysbiosis is a topic to debate, with some evidence suggesting that a diet high in fat and sugar may worsen the scalp condition [415]. Additionally, probiotic supplementation alleviates dandruff and seborrheic dermatitis [416]. Diet‐induced imbalance of gut microorganisms is associated with the progression of hidradenitis suppurativa [373], which can lead to IBD development [417]. Ceramide produced by Bifidobacterium longum enhances the skin barrier integrity in aging mice via the gut–skin axis [385]. Furthermore, dietary modifications and probiotic supplementation have beneficial effects on melanoma immunotherapy outcomes [418]. Interestingly, coffee consumption is inversely associated with the risk of skin basal cell carcinoma development [419]. The role of gut microbes in these processes warrants further investigation.
Clinical applications
Skin health can be regulated by improving gut microbes, and the consumption of probiotics and prebiotics for efficient repairing of the skin barrier has been validated in cohort studies [420]. Additionally, a healthy diet is beneficial for skin diseases [421]. Recent clinical investigations have demonstrated a significant alleviation in AD symptoms after FMT [422], and feeding probiotics resulted in better hair quality in mice [423]. Hence, targeting gut microbiota represents a novel approach to managing skin issues.
The gut–skin axis offers a novel perspective on the pivotal role of gut microbes in skin health. In the future, employing specific microbial metabolite tagging techniques in mouse skin will yield compelling evidence regarding the direct impact of gut microbes on skin physiology. Meanwhile, the application of identified probiotics and prebiotics in daily skin care products has immeasurable clinical translational value. For example, a variety of metabolites of gut microbes are currently being added to cosmetic products [424, 425, 426]. Further clarification of the specific roles of gut microbes in the skin barrier and making personalized therapeutic measures for skin health management will have a very promising clinical application in the near future.
In conclusion, exploring the factors influencing skin health, clarifying the specific mechanisms for achieving improved skin health through modulation of gut microbes, and translating these findings into specific therapeutic recommendations to unleash the regenerative potential of the skin will have far‐reaching implications for the clinical management of skin problems.
GUT–REPRODUCTION AXIS
Overview
The homeostasis of the gut microbiota plays a pivotal role in reproductive health by interacting with sex hormones like estrogen at every stage and level of female reproduction. Anomalies in the composition and functions of the microbiota contribute to the onset and progression of many reproductive diseases; these include polycystic ovarian syndrome, premature ovarian insufficiency, endometriosis, and pregnancy‐associated complications. Even though the associations between perturbations of the gut microbiota and reproductive disorders have been demonstrated within numerous studies, cause–effect relationships between gut microbiota dysbiosis and reproductive dysfunction remain elusive. Future studies need to be undertaken that would unveil the precise pathologic effects of gut microbiota dysbiosis and the molecular mechanisms underlying the association between imbalanced gut microbiota and reproductive diseases, which would greatly facilitate the development of novel therapeutic and preventive strategies.
Human gut–sex hormone axis
Human gut–estrogen axis
The gut microbiota is crucial to the regulation of hormonal levels in the host, especially estrogen. The robust link between the gut microbiome and estrogen levels is confirmed by the use of antibiotics, which significantly decreased circulating estrogen levels in women [427]. Moreover, the gut microbiota participates in the regulation of estrogen levels through the estrobolome, characterized by the genes that encode estrogen‐metabolizing enzymes in the gut microbiome. The β‐glucuronidase enzyme secreted from gut microbiota metabolizes conjugated estrogens to deconjugated forms, affecting active estrogen levels in the circulation. Dysbiosis and decreased gut microbiota diversity reduce the activity of β‐glucuronidase and lead to alterations in systemic estrogen levels that mediate the onset of estrogen‐dependent diseases like cardiovascular diseases and bone metabolism‐related diseases [428, 429, 430]. When β‐glucuronidase activity is elevated, the level of estrogen in the peripheral circulation increases. This cascade of events is involved in the development of endometriosis and estrogen‐dependent tumors [431]. In addition, the gut microbiome is involved in estrogen metabolism by synthesizing SCFAs. Butyric acid, one of the SCFAs primarily synthesized by the gut microbiome, can regulate estrogen synthesis in porcine granulosa cells [432]. Collectively, these results indicate an indispensable role for the “gut–estrogen axis” in the mediation of reproductive health and physiological functioning of women. Therefore, the role of gut microbiome dysbiosis in the development of female reproductive disorders received considerable attention.
Human gut–progestin axis
Tetrahydrocorticosterone (THP), one of the progestins, has a key role in many physiological processes in women (especially those involving the menstrual cycle and pregnancy) and can be generated through the conversion of the abundant biliary corticoids (tetrahydro deoxycorticosterone, THDOC) of the host through 21‐dehydroxylation facilitated by human gut bacteria like Gordonibacter pamelaeae and Eggerthella lenta. Additionally, the process of 21‐dehydroxylation of THDOC can be promoted by the hydrogen gas produced by human gut microbes like E. coli Nissle 1917 (EcN). THP level was significantly increased in the feces of pregnant women, along with an increased abundance of G. pamelaeae and E. lenta, compared to those of nonpregnant controls [433]. The above results indicate the essential role of gut microbiota in progestin metabolism, confirming the pivotal effects of the gut–progestin axis on female reproductive functions.
Gut microbiome and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)
PCOS is one of the most common reproductive endocrine and metabolic disorders, affecting approximately 6%–18% of women of reproductive age worldwide. PCOS is manifested as hyperandrogenism (hirsutism and/or hyperandrogenemia) and ovarian dysfunction (anovulation, oligo‐ovulation, and/or polycystic ovary) after eliminating other specific diagnoses such as hyperprolactinemia and atypical congenital adrenal hyperplasia [434, 435]. PCOS patients often exhibit systemic metabolic syndromes such as insulin resistance, obesity, and systemic inflammatory states, as well as other cardiovascular risk factors, and it is a key cause of ovulatory infertility. PCOS is also a major contributing factor to the development of early‐onset type 2 diabetes mellitus and psychiatric disorders [436]. The pathogenesis of PCOS is complex, and its clinical phenotype is characterized by significant heterogeneity. PCOS is a multigenic, epigenetic, and environmentally influenced disease whose pathogenesis has not yet been fully elucidated [435]. The role of gut microbiome dysbiosis in metabolic and endocrine‐related diseases has led to increasing efforts to explore the pathogenic role of the gut microbiome in PCOS.
Fecal microbiomes of PCOS patients showed a lower microbial diversity and different phylogenetic composition compared to healthy controls [437]. Comparison of the fecal microbiomes of healthy controls and PCOS patients demonstrated a significant reduction in the β‐diversities of microbiomes, with a significantly elevated abundance of Bacteroides vulgatus in the patients [438]. Meta‐analysis of published studies showed a significant diminution in evenness and phylogenetic abundance of the gut microbiota in PCOS patients compared to healthy controls, while diversity indices remained generally unchanged. Further analysis reflected a difference in the gut microbiota between PCOS patients and healthy controls. A decreased abundance in Lachnospira and Prevotella with enrichment in Bacteroides, Parabacteroides, Lactobacillus, Fusobacterium, and Escherichia/Shigella was observed in PCOS patients; these alterations featured a reduction in SCFAs‐producing bacteria. SCFAs produced exerted anti‐inflammation effects favoring the establishment of a pro‐inflammatory state in PCOS patients [439].
To further validate the link between gut microbiota alterations and PCOS, some researchers induced a PCOS rat model with letrozole and found a lower abundance of Lactobacillus, Ruminococcus, and Clostridium, with an elevated abundance of Prevotella. Furthermore, after transplantation of feces from healthy rats to rats with induced PCOS, the estrous cycle of the latter returned to normal and showed hallmarks of ovarian functions, including a significant improvement in ovarian morphology and attenuated androgen biosynthesis [440]. In addition, transplantation of Lactobacillus alone significantly improved the estrous cycle of rats, suggesting that a single genus may be important in PCOS pathogenesis [440]. Fecal microbiota transplantation from women with PCOS or B. vulgatus transfer into recipient mice led to the development of PCOS clinical phenotypes such as insulin resistance, altered bile acid metabolism, decreased IL‐22 secretion, and infertility [438], and these changes were chiefly mediated by agmatine, a metabolite derived from B. vulgatus. Agmatine activates intestinal epithelial FXR signaling and inhibits the secretion of glucagon‐like peptide‐1 (GLP‐1) in a non‐bile acid‐dependent manner [441]. These studies revealed the critical action of the “gut–ovary axis” in PCOS pathogenesis and emphasized the importance of the gut microbiome, especially a single genus, in PCOS development. Therefore, interventions targeting gut microbiome dysbiosis may comprise a novel therapeutic target in improving symptomology and blocking PCOS progression.
Gut microbiome and premature ovarian insufficiency (POI)
Ovarian aging is often identified as the gradual decline in ovarian functions with age, characterized by a decrease in the number and quality of oocytes, accompanied by irregular menstruation, infertility, and ultimate cessation of menstruation [442]. Menopause is a sign of natural ovarian aging and occurs mostly between the ages of 49 and 52. In contrast to natural menopause, some women exhibit a significant decline in ovarian functions before the age of 40, referred to as premature ovarian insufficiency (POI). The principal clinical features of POI are abnormal menstruation (amenorrhea or scanty/frequent menses), elevated levels of gonadotropins (follicle‐stimulating hormone [FSH] > 25 U/L), and decreased levels of estrogen before 40 years of age [443, 444]. The global prevalence of POI is approximately 3.7%, with a prevalence of 0.1% in women under 30 years of age [445]. This has drawn increasing concern because of the severe fertility impairment and significant rise in the risk of CVD, cognitive impairment, osteoporosis, and reduced life expectancy in POI patients [444]. POI is also a highly heterogeneous disease with a complicated pathogenesis. A growing number of studies have found that the gut microbiota–ovarian axis contributes to ovarian functions, and gut microbiota dysbiosis may play a key role in the initiation and progression of POI.
The abundance of SCFA‐producing Blautia, Clostridium, Faecalibacterium, Roseburia, and Ruminococcus fell significantly in the women with POI compared to healthy controls [446]. SCFAs exert anti‐inflammatory and immunomodulatory functions by regulating the immune cells [447], and a reduction in SCFA‐producing bacteria may affect POI progression by influencing the synthesis of SCFAs [448]. Hormone‐replacement therapy (HRT) is a common and helpful clinical treatment for POI patients. HRT treatment reversed the β‐diversity, and the abundance of Eggerthella in POI patients indicates the critical contribution of sex hormones to gut microbiota composition in POI patients [448]. These results suggest that gut microbiome dysbiosis and microbial metabolites may be central to POI; however, the precise functions and underlying mechanisms of action still necessitate further investigation.
Gut microbes and endometriosis
Endometriosis affects approximately 10% of women of reproductive age and is defined as the presence of endometrial glands and stromal tissue outside the uterine cavity. The main clinical features of endometriosis are chronic pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and infertility. The pathogenesis of endometriosis is complex and associated with genetic, immunological, and environmental factors; however, the exact etiology of endometriosis has yet to be fully clarified [449, 450]. Since the gut microbiota functions as a pivotal contributor to estrogen metabolism, inflammation, and immune functions, the role of gut microbiota in the onset and progression of endometriosis has attracted recent attention. Earlier, an abundance of Shigella/Escherichia was found to be significantly higher in stage III or IV endometriosis patients compared to healthy controls [451]; however, other authors discerned no difference between the gut microbiota of endometriosis patients and healthy controls during the proliferative and secretory phases of the menstrual cycle [452]. The α‐ and β‐diversity were significantly lower in fecal samples from endometriosis patients compared to healthy controls [453]. The abundance of two genera of bacteria from class Bacteroidia (Bacteroides and Parabacteroides) and two from Clostridia (Oscillospira and Coprococcus) were higher in endometriosis patients, while the abundance of two bacterial genera from the Bacteroidia (Paraprevotella and one unidentified) and Clostridia (Lachnospira and one unidentified) decreased in stool samples of endometriosis patients. However, larger studies are needed to verify the exact differences in the gut microbiota between endometriosis patients and healthy controls [453].
Besides, stool samples from endometriosis‐induced mice showed reduced diversity and abundance of gut microbiota relative to controls. Furthermore, an elevated Firmicutes‐to‐Bacteroidetes ratio in stool samples from mice with endometriosis was also reported [454, 455]. Dysregulation of the gut microbiome promoted the growth of lesions in endometriosis‐induced mice, and SCFA levels (especially butyrate) were significantly reduced in the stools, while butyrate supply has significantly reduced the size of endometriotic foci [456, 457]. These results suggest that gut microbiota imbalance and microbial‐derived SCFAs have an important role in endometriosis development. However, a definitive cause‐and‐effect relationship between the gut microbiota and the onset and progression of endometriosis in humans remains unclear, and the specific role of intestinal metabolite imbalance in the development of endometriosis requires further analysis.
Pregnancy and gut microbiota disorders
Pregnancy is a crucial reproductive stage in a woman's life that is accompanied by significant physiological changes in hormone levels, immune status, and metabolism, supporting fetal development [458, 459]. Pregnancy‐related complications, such as gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and pre‐eclampsia (PE), are serious risks to the pre‐ and long‐term health of both mother and fetus [460, 461]. The gut microbiota (bacteria and fungi) undergoes significant alterations during the pregnancy period and is primarily influenced by modulations in physiological processes in pregnant women, particularly changes in hormones [462, 463, 464]. Altered gut microbiota contributes to the regulation of endocrine, immune response, and metabolic activities in pregnant women for a successful pregnancy [465]. Gut microbiota dysregulation in pregnant women mediates the onset and progression of several pregnancy‐related complications, such as GDM and PE. GDM is often defined as abnormal glucose tolerance diagnosed or recognized during pregnancy, and it does not meet the diagnostic criteria for overt diabetes mellitus. Although GDM is regarded as a transient hyperglycemia during pregnancy, it is strongly associated with perinatal and long‐term health risks for both mother and fetus [466]. Growing evidence has identified significant disturbances in the gut microbiota of women with GDM. Although there is still variation in the results from various studies regarding gut microbiota dysbiosis of GDM patients, there is a general increase in Enterobacteriaceae, Desulfovibrio spp., Aspergillus farinaceus, Ruminococcaceae, Prevotella spp., and Collinsella spp., with a decrease in Alistipes, E. faecalis, and Bifidobacterium spp. in GDM patients [467, 468]. In addition, gut microbiota dysbiosis precipitates in the development of GDM mainly through a reduction in microbial‐derived SCFAs [469]. PE is a pregnancy‐specific disorder defined as new‐onset hypertension after 20 weeks of gestation with at least one concomitant complication, such as proteinuria or maternal organ dysfunction, a serious complication jeopardizing the health of the mother and fetus [470]. Numerous studies have confirmed disturbances in the gut microbiome of PE patients relative to healthy pregnant women. Our group noted a significant drop in α‐diversity in the gut microbiota of PE patients that was accompanied by a significant elevation in pathogenic taxa such as Clostridium difficile (also some beneficial taxa except for Clostridium butyricum), Dialister, Veillonella, and Fusobacterium and a significant diminution in probiotic genera such as Lachnospira, Akkermansia, and Faecalibacterium. These microbial changes were strongly correlated with clinical markers of PE, such as blood pressure and biomarkers of liver and renal functions. The gut microbiota of PE patients induced pre‐eclampsia‐like symptoms in pregnant rats, associated with an impaired intestinal barrier and a dysregulation of Th17/Treg ratio, resulting in augmented systemic inflammation and impaired placentation [471]. The gut microbiota of PE patients had a specific loss of SCFA‐producing bacteria, causing a drop in localized propionic acid and butyric acid in the placenta, whereas the PE‐like symptoms were reversed by supplementation with A. muciniphila, propionic acid, or butyric acid in mice by promoting placental macrophage autophagy and prohibiting M1 phenotypic transition [472]. In addition, A. muciniphila supplementation has significantly ameliorated the clinical phenotype of pre‐eclamptic mice through secreted OMVs, suggesting OMVs as key contributors to the initiation and progression of PE by interacting with placental target cells [473]. Dysbiosis of paternal gut microbiota increased the probability of offspring having low birth weight, severe growth restriction, and premature mortality by interfering with testicular metabolism; this affected the composition of small RNAs in spermatozoa, ultimately resulting in the impairment of placental development [474]. The importance of the gut microbiota on successful pregnancy was emphasized, and the importance of paternal gut microbiota dysbiosis on placental function and outcome of pregnancy was further highlighted; these indices are sensitive to environmental factors, which require additional investigations.
Section summary
The gut microbiota, a dynamic ecosystem, displays an important function in women's reproductive health and is recognized as a metabolically active “organ” in different phases of female reproductive activities. Dysbiosis in the gut microbiota contributes to the onset and progression of female reproductive diseases through direct interactions with the host or via metabolites/OMVs released from the gut microbiota. A regulatory “gut–germline axis” in males acts as the key interface between the paternal preconceptive environment and intergenerational health in mice, highlighting the importance of environmental factors on reproductive health through the gut microbiota. In addition, specific roles and underlying molecular mechanism(s) of action for certain bacteria with significantly altered abundance within the gut microbiota in patients with reproductively related diseases (such as PCOS) have been identified and are receiving increasing attention. Gut microbiota‐derived metabolites or OMVs act as important indicators for the diagnosis, early prediction, and prognostic assessment of female reproduction‐related diseases. Dietary intervention or probiotic supplementation may improve reproductive disorders by modulating the gut microbiota. Thus, the use of probiotics or fecal transplants to improve the dysbiosis of the gut microbiota may constitute a novel option for the prevention or treatment of reproductive diseases.
The alterations and functions of the gut microbiota in reproductive disorders remain contentious, as various studies present conflicting findings. This inconsistency may be attributed to variations in sample size, study methodologies, ethnicity, geographical factors, and dietary habits. Given the complexities inherent in the pathogenesis of reproductive diseases, the exact roles and mechanisms through which dysbiosis‐associated metabolites and OMVs of the gut microbiota influence disease progression are not yet fully understood. To effectively control potential confounding factors and reveal the definitive pathogenic effects of specific microbe–microbe and microbe–host interactions in reproductive diseases, it is necessary to optimize bioinformatics techniques such as metabolomics, transcriptomics, and single‐cell sequencing, as well as conduct large‐scale randomized clinical trials. Additionally, further research is needed to determine the role of specific bacterial species and their metabolites/OMVs in the onset and progression of reproductive diseases. Furthermore, the controversy surrounding the existence of a placental microbiome and its regulatory effects on pregnancy needs to be addressed. Improved quality and reproducibility of the research approach are required to avoid contamination and be consistent with DNA extraction, both in terms of timing and methods. Larger birth cohorts with normal birth mothers should be established to enable the identification of the existence of the placental microbiome and to track the bacteria that translocate to the gut of infants. Such analyses will further elucidate the relationship between the gut microbiota and reproductive disorders, thus identifying their potential therapeutic value.
GUT–ENDOCRINE AXIS
Overview
The gut–endocrine axis involves complex interactions among the gut microbiota, enteroendocrine cells, and endocrine organs, playing an indispensable role in human health and disease. The gut microbiota produces a variety of metabolic products, such as SCFAs, bile acid metabolites, and indole derivatives, which influence systemic endocrine organs through the bloodstream. Enteroendocrine cells, part of the intestinal epithelium, are distributed throughout the digestive tract. They secrete various hormones, such as GLP‐1, peptide YY (PYY), and gastric inhibitory peptide (GIP), which regulate appetite, insulin secretion, and gastrointestinal motility, and their functions are influenced by the gut microbiota [475, 476]. The vagus nerve connects the gut and brain, transmitting information about the gut state to the central nervous system, thereby affecting the functions of the endocrine system [477]. The enteric nervous system, known as the “second brain,” regulates the gut functions independently of the central nervous system and communicates with it through complex neural networks [478]. Hormones and metabolites secreted by the gut microbiota and enteroendocrine cells affect the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis, regulating stress responses and cortisol secretion [479]. The gut microbiota, through metabolites and neurotransmitters, may also influence the hypothalamic–pituitary–thyroid (HPT) axis, regulating thyroid hormone secretion [480]. Additionally, hormones and metabolites secreted by the gut microbiota and enteroendocrine cells affect the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal (HPG) axis, regulating sex hormone secretion [481]. Thus, the gut–endocrine axis is a complex biological network involving interactions among the gut microbiota, enteroendocrine cells, the nervous system, and endocrine organs, significantly impacting the development of various endocrine diseases. The following section will specifically elucidate the impact of the gut microbiota on the development of diabetes.
Diabetes
Numerous studies have demonstrated significant differences in the gut microbiota composition between type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients and healthy individuals [482, 483, 484]. Compared to healthy individuals, T2D patients exhibit a reduced abundance of butyrate‐producing bacteria such as Roseburia intestinalis, F. prausnitzii, and Eubacterium rectale, while there is an increased abundance of opportunistic pathogens like Bacteroides caccae, Clostridiales, E. coli, and sulfate‐reducing bacteria such as Desulfovibrio [482, 485]. The reduction in butyrate‐producing bacteria is also a characteristic feature of the gut microbiota in prediabetic individuals. Functionally, the gut microbiome of T2D patients shows an increase in genes associated with sugar transport, BCAA transport, sulfate reduction, and oxidative stress response, along with a decrease in genes related to butyrate biosynthesis [482, 485]. The metabolic profile of the gut microbiota in T2D patients also differs from that of healthy individuals, including reduced levels of SCFAs, altered bile acid composition and concentration, and elevated BCAA levels [486, 487]. Additionally, the concentrations of gut microbiota‐derived metabolites such as imidazole propionate, phenolic compounds like 3‐phenylpropionic acid, and 3‐indole‐lactic acid are higher in T2D patients compared to healthy individuals [487, 488].
The primary mechanisms by which the gut microbiota influences the development of T2D include their effects on energy absorption and balance. The gut microbiota regulates the secretion of host appetite hormones, influencing energy intake. SCFAs, the main end products of gut microbiota fermentation of dietary fiber, act on GPR41/43 receptors on intestinal epithelial cells, promoting the secretion of GLP‐1 and PYY [489]. These hormones suppress appetite and increase satiety [490]. Butyrate reduces the activity of appetite‐promoting neurons in the hypothalamus, decreasing food intake [491]. Secondary bile acids and certain proteins secreted by gut bacteria, such as E. coli secreted ClpB and A. muciniphila secreted P9 protein, can also stimulate GLP‐1 secretion [492, 493, 494]. Conversely, some metabolites, such as deoxycholic acid and high concentrations of acetate, inhibit GLP‐1 secretion or promote ghrelin secretion, leading to an increased appetite [495, 496]. Indole, a tryptophan metabolite, promotes GLP‐1 secretion in the short term but subsequently inhibits its secretion [497]. The gut microbiota also regulates the thermogenic activity of host adipose tissue and liver, promoting energy expenditure. Oral administration of butyrate in mice promotes the expression of thermogenesis‐related genes, PPAR‐γ coactivator 1α (PGC‐1α), and uncoupling protein 1 (UCP1) in brown adipose tissue, enhancing energy expenditure and fat oxidation [491, 498]. Acetate upregulates the expression of genes related to fatty acid oxidation and thermogenesis in the liver, inhibiting fat accumulation in adipose tissue and the liver [499]. Succinate and P9 protein can also promote UCP‐dependent thermogenesis in brown adipose tissue [494, 500]. Lithocholic acid binds to the TGR5 receptor in adipose tissue, promoting the browning of white and brown fat to stimulate thermogenesis [501]. On the other hand, this process regulates glycogen synthesis and breakdown, thereby influencing host energy metabolism. The activation of intestinal gluconeogenesis leads to a reduction in hepatic glucose production associated with improved glucose homeostasis. Butyrate, propionate, and succinate activate the expression of genes related to intestinal gluconeogenesis [502, 503]. In contrast, hydrogen sulfide stimulates gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis in rodent hepatocytes, reducing glucose utilization, decreasing glycogen storage, and disrupting glucose homeostasis [504].
Moreover, the gut microbiota and its metabolites influence insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity. SCFAs regulate glucose metabolism by affecting the functions and secretion of insulin by pancreatic β‐cells. SCFAs promote GLP‐1 secretion, which, upon binding to its receptors on the surface of pancreatic β‐cells, enhances insulin synthesis and secretion as well as the growth and proliferation of β‐cells [505]. On the other hand, SCFAs directly act on GPR41/43 receptors on the surface of β‐cells to enhance glucose‐stimulated insulin secretion and improve β‐cell functions [506, 507, 508]. Propionate primarily ensures β‐cell quality and glucose‐stimulated insulin secretion by inhibiting β‐cell apoptosis [506, 507, 508]. However, propionate may also have adverse effects on host glucose metabolism, such as increasing postprandial plasma glucagon, fatty acid‐binding protein, and norepinephrine levels, which can lead to insulin resistance and compensatory hyperinsulinemia [509], thus increasing the risk of T2D [510]. Various products of gut microbiota‐mediated metabolism of proteins and amino acids significantly impact insulin sensitivity and β‐cell function. For example, elevated plasma levels of BCAAs are associated with insulin resistance and an increased risk of T2D. In the gut microbiomes of insulin‐resistant individuals, the capability for BCAA synthesis driven by Prevotella copri and Bacteroides vulgatus is enhanced, while the capacity for BCAA uptake and degradation driven by Butyrivibrio crossotus and Eubacterium siraeum is diminished [487]. The gut microbiota‐derived metabolite imidazole propionate, a product of histidine metabolism, impairs glucose tolerance and disrupts insulin signaling by activating the mTORC1 signaling pathway [511]. Conversely, the intermediate product of tryptophan metabolism by gut microbiota, 3‐indole propionic acid, is associated with improved insulin secretion and sensitivity, as well as a reduced risk of T2D [512]. Additionally, 4‐methylphenol, a product of protein fermentation by gut microbiota, stimulates insulin secretion and β‐cell proliferation [513].
Gut microbiota has a significant role in the impairment of intestinal barrier function and chronic inflammation, which are crucial in the development and progression of diabetes. Damage to the intestinal barrier allows bacteria and toxins from the intestinal lumen to enter the bloodstream, triggering both local and systemic inflammatory responses and insulin resistance, thereby leading to impaired glucose tolerance [514]. The mucus layer, tight junctions, and intestinal epithelial cells form the structural foundation of the intestinal mechanical barrier, all of which are influenced by the gut microbiota. Gut microbiota and its metabolites also regulate the synthesis and secretion of intestinal mucins. Butyrate promotes the proliferation of goblet cells (mucin‐secreting cells) and the expression of the mucin‐2 gene, increases mucin‐2 secretion, and improves the intestinal mucus barrier [515]. Similarly, the beneficial effects of A. muciniphila on the intestinal barrier are related to its ability to promote goblet cell proliferation [516]. Gut microbiota also regulates the expression of tight junction protein genes in the intestinal epithelial cells. Butyrate and indole enhance intestinal barrier function by upregulating the expression of tight junction protein genes in the intestinal epithelial cells [517, 518]. The outer membrane protein Amuc_1100 of A. muciniphila acts on TLR2, regulating the expression of tight junction protein‐related genes in the intestinal epithelial cells and improving the intestinal barrier [519]. However, gut microbiota dysbiosis leads to an increase in metabolites that are detrimental to the intestinal barrier function, such as ethanolamine and trans‐fatty acids, which downregulate the expression of tight junction protein‐related genes and disrupt the intestinal barrier [520, 521]. Gut microbiota also regulates the number of intestinal epithelial cells. A. muciniphila and its membrane protein Amuc_1100 promote the regeneration and repair of intestinal epithelial cells, thereby maintaining the integrity of the intestinal barrier [522]. Dysbiosis and impaired intestinal barrier function may lead to the translocation of bacteria or their metabolites into the host circulatory system, which is a crucial mechanism for inducing low‐grade chronic inflammation in the host. Lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a component of the cell wall of Gram‐negative bacteria, activates the CD14/TLR4 signaling complex on the surface of innate immune cells once it enters the bloodstream, inducing the secretion of pro‐inflammatory cytokines and promoting inflammatory responses [523]. Conversely, butyrate promotes the differentiation of anti‐inflammatory Treg cells, suppressing inflammatory responses in the gut and peripheral tissues, and it can directly act on histone deacetylases to alleviate intestinal inflammation [524, 525]. The presence of low‐grade chronic inflammation in T2D patients may also be related to the reduction of anti‐inflammatory bacteria such as F. prausnitzii in their gut. F. prausnitzii mitigates inflammatory responses by blocking NF‐κB activation and IL‐8 production [526].
Gut microbiota‐targeted interventions to alleviate diabetes
Directly Altering the Structure of Gut Microbiota: Transplanting the gut microbiota from lean, healthy individuals to patients with obesity and metabolic syndrome can effectively improve the recipients' insulin sensitivity [527, 528]. Recent studies have also found that FMT has certain therapeutic effects on diabetic peripheral neuropathy [529]. Additionally, supplementing with a mixture of one or more probiotics can enhance insulin sensitivity and reduce insulin resistance in patients with T2D or obesity [530]. Clinical studies have further shown that the combined use of probiotics with prebiotics or medications may have an even better effect on improving glucose metabolism [94].
Indirectly Regulating the Structure of Gut Microbiota: Multiple clinical trials have confirmed that dietary interventions with high dietary fiber can significantly improve glucose and lipid metabolism in patients with obesity and T2D and reduce gut permeability, systemic inflammation, and insulin resistance [483, 531]. This is achieved by selectively enriching beneficial bacteria in the gut, such as SCFA‐producing bacteria, thereby increasing SCFA content in the gut and promoting the secretion of gut hormones like GLP‐1 and PYY. Similarly, the Ma‐Pi 2 diet, which is rich in dietary fiber, effectively improves glucose and lipid metabolism in T2D patients by enriching SCFA‐producing bacteria and inhibiting pro‐inflammatory bacteria in the gut [532].
Challenges in the field
The progression from a healthy state to prediabetes, the onset of type 2 diabetes, and the development of various complications is a complex multiorgan disease involving metabolic, immune, and nervous systems. Due to the limitations of previous research methodologies and strategies on microbiota, studies on the gut microbiota and diabetes are still in their early stages. The gut microbiota is a complex ecological community, where its members are far from being disorganized or isolated; instead, they function through a network system formed by ecological relationships such as cooperation and competition. More importantly, the functions of individual members within the gut microbiota are not equivalent. Key members influence the host's health and disease states through interactions with the host, and they can determine the stability of the community by regulating other members within the ecological network. These key members constitute the core microbiota of the gut microbiome. Despite significant efforts, characterizing the core microbiota and understanding their interaction mechanisms with the host remain critical scientific challenges in this field.
In earlier studies, the relationship between microbiota and disease was predominantly correlational, but current research is advancing toward causal and mechanistic investigations. The gut microbiota and their metabolites are recognized and sensed by the gut, participating in the regulation of the intestinal epithelial barrier and altering innate and adaptive immune signals/cell functions, potentially affecting systemic inflammation mediated by distant organs. The gut microbiota can regulate gut–brain peptides such as cholecystokinin, ghrelin, PYY, and GLP‐1, which may subsequently impact neuronal function in the brain and the gut–brain axis biofeedback system, thereby influencing energy homeostasis. Thus, the gut microbiota influences the onset and progression of diabetes through interactions with the host's immune and nervous systems. However, the immune system effector molecules, signaling pathways involved in these microbiota interactions, and the functional neurons of the nervous system remain unclear. Given the complexity of diabetes as a multiorgan, multistage disease, elucidating the multidimensional and multilayered molecular mechanisms of key microbiota–host interactions remains a significant challenge.
Section summary
As one of the most severe chronic diseases in contemporary society, developing more cost‐effective prevention and treatment strategies for T2D is an urgent issue. The gut microbiota, as a potential therapeutic target, offers new hope for the prevention and treatment of T2D. Regulating the gut microbiota through high‐fiber diets and other methods to alleviate T2D has broad application prospects, but it is still in its early stages and faces numerous challenges before clinical application. One challenge is the contradictory findings regarding the association between T2D and specific bacteria in different studies. For example, some studies found a decreased abundance of Bacteroides intestinalis in the gut of T2D patients, while other studies have shown an increased abundance [482, 485]. Another challenge is the individual variability in the gut microbiota, which can affect the efficacy of interventions. For instance, the ratio of Prevotella to Bacteroides in the gut influences the effectiveness of barley kernel bread in improving an individual's blood glucose and insulin secretion [533]. Additionally, differences in the gut microbiota composition among populations impact the effectiveness of fecal microbiota transplantation in improving the insulin sensitivity of patients with metabolic syndrome [528]. Finally, prebiotic interventions do not always improve glucose metabolism and may even have adverse effects [534, 535]. These issues limit the clinical development and application of gut microbiota‐targeted interventions for alleviating T2D. In conclusion, more research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms by which gut bacteria regulate the development and progression of T2D. Additionally, more clinical studies are necessary to achieve precise regulation of the gut microbiota, thereby enabling more effective alleviation and treatment of T2D.
GUT–BRAIN AXIS
Overview
The gut microbiota can generate various metabolites that interact with the host through neural, immune, and metabolic pathways, influencing brain function and maintaining systemic homeostasis. This bidirectional communication is called the microbiota–gut–brain axis [536, 537], representing a tightly interconnected and complex network that regulates metabolism, immune homeostasis, and central nervous system functions [538, 539, 540, 541]. Numerous reviews have systematically summarized the research progress of the gut–brain axis in depression, Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's disease. Our review will primarily focus on its research advances in neurodevelopmental disorders caused by abnormalities in maternal–infant microbiota transmission.
As a significant physiological process, maternal–infant vertical transmission indicates that maternal microbiota may interfere with gut–brain signaling and thus play a crucial role in offspring's neurodevelopment in numerous unexpected and fascinating ways [542]. Deletion and selective reconstitution of maternal gut microbiota can affect offspring's neurodevelopment. Both germ‐free and antibiotic‐treated maternal embryonic brains show reduced expression of genes associated with axonogenesis, insufficient numbers of thalamocortical axons and impaired thalamic axon growth in mice. In contrast, maternal mice colonized with Clostridia‐dominant spore‐forming (Sp) bacteria can elevate the levels of trimethylamine oxide and imidazole propionic acid in the fetal brain preventing defects in fetal thalamocortical axonogenesis [543], suggesting that a structurally and functionally normal maternal microbiome is essential for the fetal neurodevelopment.
A growing body of evidence indicates that a myriad of intricate maternal and postnatal factors can induce structural and functional abnormalities in the developing brain of offspring, with repercussions that extend into adulthood [544, 545]. Some of these effects may even be transmitted longitudinally across germ lines through intergenerational inheritance [546]. Prospective studies have linked maternal infections during pregnancy to an elevated risk of mental disorders in the offspring [547]. High psychological stress during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of behavioral problems and mental disorders in children [548]. Additionally, maternal metabolic status, dietary habits, and behavior during breastfeeding influence the neurodevelopment of offspring, potentially altering their susceptibility to conditions such as anxiety, depression, and cognitive impairments [549, 550, 551]. Despite these associations, the underlying mechanisms remain largely elusive. Herein, we critically examine the current reports concerning the impact of maternal gut microbiota on offspring neurodevelopment. We aim to provide a comprehensive framework for examining the mechanisms of mother–infant microbiome interactions and their influence on neurodevelopment, thereby offering a multifaceted and progressive perspective in this rapidly advancing field (Figure 11).
Figure 11.

The interaction pathway between the gut and brain in maternal and offspring host systems. The conceptual framework delineates an overview of the multifactorial influences exerted by the maternal gut microbiota and its derived components on a range of physiological processes, including metabolism, immunological functions, embryonic development, and lactation. The maternal microbiome and its derived metabolites intricately modulate offspring neurodevelopment during both prenatal and postnatal periods. These effects may occur independently of, or in conjunction with, mother–infant microbial transmission processes, ultimately shaping the gut microbiota of the offspring. Created with BioRender.com.
Shifting periods of microbial growth and brain development
Early life represents the most dynamic period for both microbiota maturation and brain development, with microbial colonization and proliferation occurring concurrently with neurodevelopment, both of which take place within a critical window of heightened sensitivity to external influences [552]. During these critical periods, rapid changes in neuronal organization, including, but not restricted to, neurogenesis, axonal and dendritic growth, the refinement of prominent connections, and myelin sheath production, are observed. These processes form the body's functional neural circuits essential for normal cognitive, motor, and emotional development. Simultaneously, the intestinal microbiota undergoes a gradual transition from an unstable state characterized by a loose microecological structure and low maturity to a more established composition featuring complex, three‐dimensional functional pathways [553]. Given the extensive research on the critical role of microbiota–gut–brain axis communication in structural and functional changes, it becomes apparent that altering or interrupting the initial colonization or development of the gut microbiota during this period is highly likely to profoundly affect gut–brain signaling. Therefore, an altered microbiome may raise the risk of neurodevelopmental issues and affect lifelong health. All these theories highlight the importance of the microbiota in early development [554, 555]. Supporting this, studies with germ‐free mice have shown the microbiome's significant role in early neurodevelopment [554, 556, 557].
Systemic interactions of maternal gut microbiota play an indispensable role in the development of the offspring's gut microbiota
Numerous factors can influence the colonization and composition of the early fetal microbiota, including genetic factors, the surrounding environment, maternal diet during pregnancy, exposure to infections, and mode of delivery. Notably, microorganisms from multiple ecological sites in the human gut, oral cavity, vagina, uterine cavity, and skin may have some overlap in structural compositions and functional attributes [558, 559, 560, 561, 562]. Staged development of barrier functions early in life may provide opportunities for bacterial translocation and communication. For example, the oral microbiota has the potential to impact the composition of the gut microbiota via mechanisms such as intestinal migration, hematogenous pathways, and the migration of immune cells [563] (Figure 12). Research on atopic dermatitis suggests that the complement system, neuroendocrine regulation, and AHR‐mediated immune signaling may influence the gut–skin axis, impacting disease progression and host balance [384, 564] (Figure 12). Sequencing studies show that early infant fecal microbes come from various maternal sources [565]. The collective contribution of these diverse microbial ecosystems may underscore the holistic nature of mother‐to‐infant microbiome transmission during the critical window period and its potential long‐term implications for offspring's health and development (Figure 12).
Figure 12.

Conceptual framework: Mechanisms through which systemic interactions of maternal gut microbiota influence offspring's neurodevelopment. The human microbiome exhibits a remarkable degree of interconnectedness across various ecological niches, including the gut, oral cavity, vagina, uterine cavity, and skin. These diverse microbial communities often display overlapping structural compositions and functional attributes. This intricate network of maternal microorganisms engages in complex interactions and synergistic activities throughout physiological and pathological processes, potentially exerting profound influences on the neurodevelopmental trajectories of offspring. Moreover, these distinct ecological niches within the maternal body play crucial roles in facilitating the vertical transmission of microbiota from mother to child. This process of microbial transfer is not confined to a single site but rather involves a coordinated effort across multiple maternal habitats, such as Uterine microbiota (A), Vaginal microbiota (B), Skin microbiota (C), Oral microbiota (D), and the major barriers of the body (E), especially the intestinal barrier, are an important link in the systemic interactions of microorganisms. Created with BioRender.com.
Prenatal transmission and priming: The role of maternal gut microbiota in shaping offspring's intestinal microenvironment and physiology
Currently, the discussion on the presence of microbes in the prenatal embryonic gut remains controversial due to technical limitations [566, 567, 568], and it is unclear whether maternal gut microbiota can cross the placental barrier to seed the offspring's gut directly (Figure 13). Detection of microbiota in the placenta and uterine cavity of pregnant women challenges the notion of a sterile fetal environment [569, 570, 571] (Figure 12A). Some investigators have detected common oral commensal and periodontal pathogens in the placenta and amniotic fluid [572, 573]. The microecological environment of women's upper and lower reproductive tracts shows a continuous microbial distribution, with the uterine cavity containing a mixture of microbiota from the vagina and fallopian tubes. In this environment, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Serratia marcescens are the dominant organisms [574], suggesting an upward migration of vaginal microorganisms to the uterine cavity (Figure 12B). Concurrently, the high degree of bacterial homology observed at the mucosal tissue site implies the possibility of intestinal microbes invading the endometrium by a unique mechanism when the intestinal mucosal epithelial barrier is immature or disrupted [559]. These findings demonstrate a correlation between uterine, oral, vaginal, and intestinal microorganisms, indicating a close interaction between neonates and maternal gut microbiota before birth. This implies the influence of maternal microbiota on infant health within the uterus. Despite the existing uncertainties, it is evident that the maternal microbiome's impact on the microbial colonization of the offspring may commence prenatally through various mechanisms. It is well established that the fetus undergoes one of the most significant environmental transitions as it moves from the protected uterine environment to the external world. The maternal microbiota is well positioned to support the newborn for the long term in meeting this challenge during this crucial life stage [575]. The mother–infant dichotomy maintains a special and intimate connection through the umbilical cord and breast milk [576], serving as a bridge for maternal microorganisms to influence the offspring's development. In utero, microbe‐affected maternal immune cells, IgG, small amounts of IgE, microbial antigenic structures, and other immunomodulators are transferred via the placenta, where they exert effector functions such as neutralization, phagocytosis, and pro‐immune cell activation in the fetus to prepare a suitable immune and cellular microenvironment for fetal microbial colonization at and after birth (Figure 13) and to have an effect on the development of the immune system and the offspring's health (Figure 14). For instance, a selective placental transfer of maternal IgG provides passive immunological protection for the newborn infant [577]. It has been suggested that maternal HIV infection may reduce the efficiency of placental transfer of pathogen‐specific IgG by affecting the ability of maternal IgG to bind to the placenta‐expressed Fc receptors FcγRIIa and FcγRIIIa, thereby reducing the efficiency of placental transfer of pathogens [577, 578]. Thus, the maternal gut microbiota may regulate the characteristics and quantity of antibodies transferred to the offspring in various ways. In addition to antibody transfer, maternal gut microbes also regulate several immune cells, cytokines, and complement components that influence pregnancy outcome and fetal development. For example, under physiological conditions, maternal gut microbes induce Th17 differentiation and promote the insertion and growth of trophoblast cells to support the healthy development of the offspring [579]. Elimination or alteration of maternal gut microbes during pregnancy recalibrates the distribution and function of immune cells in the offspring, leading to an increased probability of disease [580, 581]. Notably, alterations in the microbial structure induced by maternal exposure to stress, dietary changes, and infections during pregnancy produce excessive amounts of immune products or immunomodulatory metabolites that may directly or indirectly mediate brain damage in the fetus. In these events, the link between maternal viral infections and offspring neurodevelopment has a long history. For example, based on ecological and epidemiological studies of certain viruses (rubella, influenza, measles, mumps, chickenpox, and polio), scientists have essentially mapped their association with the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism and schizophrenia [582, 583]. Follow‐up studies using polyinosinic–polycytidylic acid (poly I:C) to simulate pregnancy‐related viral infections in animals have shown offspring with brain and behavioral traits similar to human neurological diseases [584]. Excessive activation of IL‐17a signaling in the gut following maternal pregnancy infection leads to malformations in fetal cortical development and affects chromatin accessibility of naive CD4+ T cells, leading to fetal neurodevelopmental disorders and severe intestinal inflammation [579, 585, 586]. Additionally, other signals generated by maternal immune activation affect the striatal, hippocampal, and cortical volumes of the offspring, alter the transcriptional levels in brain regions like the dorsal–ventral nucleus of the hippocampus and the anterior cingulate gyrus cortex, and cause deficits in the perineuronal matrix network [587, 588]. Moreover, a maternal high‐fat diet leads to the accumulation of endotoxin in fetal tissues, increases macrophage toll‐like receptor 4 signaling, and induces excessive phagocytosis of serotonin (5‐HT) neurons in the dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN) by microglial cells, which increases offspring susceptibility to neurological diseases [589].
Figure 13.

Maternal gut microbiota regulates offspring's neurodevelopment by influencing gut microbial colonization. The maternal gut microbiota exerts a profound influence on offspring's microbial colonization through dual pathways. Primarily, it directly shapes fetal microbiota composition during birth. Additionally, its impact on fetal microbiota colonization may commence as early as the maternal–fetal interface, persisting postnatally through breastfeeding, nurturing, and maternal companionship. The intricate dialogue between maternal gut microbiota and their metabolites at the maternal–fetal interface potentially primes offspring for adaptive responses and microenvironmental preparedness. Postnatal mother–infant contact and mode of delivery determine the microorganisms to which infants are first exposed, setting the tone for the development of gut microbiome colonization in the offspring. Breast milk composition is intricately influenced by maternal gut microbiota, which serves as a continuous inoculum for the offspring's gut microbiome. During breastfeeding and nurturing, the offspring's gut microbiota undergoes maturation and stabilization, concurrently contributing to the refinement of neurological functions. Throughout both prenatal and postnatal stages, a complex interplay of environmental factors, dietary influences, and pathogen exposures modulates the process of maternal gut microbiota transmission to offspring. This transfer plays a substantial role in the offspring's neurodevelopment. Created with BioRender.com.
Figure 14.

Maternal gut microbiota affects the neurodevelopment of the offspring through the microbiota–metabolic/immunity–gut–brain axis. (A) The maternal gut microbiota and its metabolites exert a tripartite influence on offspring's metabolic homeostasis, facilitating both direct and indirect communication with the developing brain. (B) Mother‐to‐child immune transfer has profound implications in regulating the structure of the gut microbiota of the offspring, guiding immune maturation, and modulating neuroimmune health. (C) The median axis represents the continuous developmental trajectory of the offspring's gut and brain. This process is subject to persistent and strong interactions between metabolic and immune factors. The intricate interplay of these systems emphasizes the dynamic nature of early development and the long‐lasting impact of maternal influences on offspring. Created with BioRender.com.
In addition to immune signaling, during the embryonic period, a variety of maternal microbial metabolites are detectable within the fetoplacental unit, with transmission to the fetus occurring through the umbilical cord [543, 567, 590] (Figure 14). Some of these metabolites reach the fetal brain or affect axon formation and neuronal connectivity directly, while others, like SCFAs [591], can reach other components of the sympathetic nervous system, gut, and pancreas. These metabolites may be trapped by free fatty acid receptors GPR41 and GPR43, promoting the development of nerve cells, enteroendocrine cells, and pancreatic β‐cells, thus affecting the long‐term energy metabolic balance and neurodevelopment of the offspring [592, 593]. Therefore, the dynamics of the intestinal mycobiome during pregnancy are covariant with metabolites in host serum, and interactions between related fungal genera and the host may collectively mediate adverse pregnancy outcomes such as GDM and fetal overgrowth [463]. Furthermore, maternal high‐fat diet‐mediated changes in the gut microbiota elevate maternal plasma levels of kynurenine and modulate the levels of molecules involved in the glutamate–glutamine cycle in the embryonic brain, impairing offspring's behavior [594]. In addition, maternal infections or changes in microbial structure during pregnancy can lead to the gradual buildup of harmful metabolites, bacterial products, DNA, and virulence factors in the fetal environment. This accumulation can affect the embryo's metabolite levels and the bioavailability of essential nutrients, potentially causing direct damage to the fragile fetal brain. Advances in detection methods at the maternal–fetal interface will enhance the ability to trace metabolites from early in life, boosting the potential of this research field [595] and decoding bacterial metabolic mechanisms. The maternal gut microbiota, their metabolites, and maternal immune transfer work together to prepare the fetal gut microbiota and physiology, speeding up the maturation of the fetal immune system during early microbial colonization, which significantly impacts the offspring's neurodevelopment.
Gut microbiota colonization at birth
While debate persists regarding the direct colonization of the fetal gut by maternal microorganisms before birth, substantial evidence indicates vertical transmission of maternal microbiota from multiple sites during and after birth to the infant. Frequent interactions and sharing between maternal microbiota and infant gut microbiota occur early in life, with the mother contributing most significantly to the offspring [596]. Different delivery modes alter the nature of initial microbiome exposure to the fetus, resulting in different colonization effects (Figure 13). Infants delivered by cesarean section exhibit a markedly different microbial composition and developmental trajectory, as they are primarily exposed to microorganisms from the hospital environment. On the other hand, infants born vaginally are primarily colonized by the bacteria from the maternal reproductive tract [597]. Notably, gut microbes may be involved in this process by participating in the metabolism of key host factors such as estrogen to regulate the vaginal microenvironment and functions [431, 598, 599]. Cesarean delivery has often been associated with a tendency toward stunted gut microbiota, such as a lower abundance of Lactobacillus spp. in their fetal stools and a higher rate of colonization by conditionally pathogenic bacteria, significantly affecting the newborn's health, which potentially extends into adulthood [600, 601]. However, this significant alteration in fetal gut microbiota structure caused by cesarean section can be effectively corrected by maternal fecal transplantation after birth [602]. This further supports the role of maternal gut microbiota in shaping the offspring's gut microbiota during development.
In addition, in the early stages of life, the persistence and ecological adaptation of the maternal gut microbiota in the infant's intestine becomes more pronounced during the subsequent breastfeeding and day‐to‐day nurturing period, and they gradually become an important component of the infant's developing gut microbiota [565].
Postnatal transmission and shaping of microbiome
After birth, the mother's breastfeeding and nurturing behaviors take over the gut microbe‐dependent mother–fetus interface dialogue, promoting the infant's health and long‐term well‐being. Maternal microbial metabolites (SCFAs and oligosaccharides [603, 604, 605]) and vesicles [606], and gut microbe‐associated immune substances (antigenic peptides, immunoglobulins, cytokines, and complement components) reach the mammary glands through lymphatic‐blood circulation, becoming a part of the breast milk (Figure 13). Therefore, breast milk is rich in nutrients and biologically active factors, which strengthens the infant's GI tract [607, 608] and promotes healthy brain development [609]. Microorganisms partially derived from the gut in breast milk have been increasingly reported at the species, genus, and strain level using culture and sequencing methods [610, 611]. These microorganisms may or may not directly seed the offspring's intestinal tract via the intestinal mammary–oral axis [611, 612]. For example, bifidobacterial communities may be transmitted from mother to child through breast milk [613]. Evidence for the role of phages in the mother–infant link has also been documented. Coevolution between phages and their host bacteria may influence the diversity and maturity of the infant gut microbiota. Bifidophages are involved in influencing the composition and function of Bifidobacteria in the infant's gut, possibly via vertical transmission from the mother's gut to the infants [613]. Accordingly, the pioneering colonization of some bacteria enhances or limits the fitness of others by rewriting the metabolomic profiles and immune environment in the offspring's intestine [614]. Metabolites derived from maternal gut microbiota, along with IgA that anchors microorganisms, can be transmitted to the infant through breast milk postpartum. This transmission indirectly promotes the colonization and symbiosis of specific fetal microorganisms, supports the development of beneficial intestinal microbiota, and facilitates immune system maturation, thereby protecting against invasive infections [575, 576, 615]. For example, SCFAs (acetate and propionate) and other fermentation metabolites formed by intestinal microorganisms in breast milk not only promote the colonization of bacteria such as Bifidobacterium in the offspring's intestinal tract by serving as a cross‐feeding substrate but also exert antimicrobial activity against Clostridiaceae and Peptostreptococcaceae organisms [616]. On the other hand, high levels of arachidonic acid (AA) in breast milk can lead to gut microbiota dysbiosis and immune disorders in infants [617]. After undergoing digestion by various proteases in the offspring, the proteins in breast milk release thousands of polypeptides in the intestine, performing diverse functions. A related study has validated the peptides with growth inhibitory activity against Staphylococcus aureus, providing strong evidence for breast milk proteins in tailoring the development of offspring's gut microbiota [618].
Simultaneously, the nurturing process, replete with daily contact, is an important part of the seeding of the mother's gut microbiota to her offspring. The mother's skin microbiota has been identified as a source of microorganisms for the infant's skin, mouth, gut, and other parts of the body and is involved in building a mature, symbiotic microbial network between multiple body parts of the mother and infant intimately [619, 620, 621, 622, 623]. A randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands identified significant differences in gut microbiota composition and bacterial abundance and predicted functional enrichment in infants who had daily skin‐to‐skin contact with their mothers compared to controls [565, 619, 624]. Although the study cannot exclude the influence of factors like breastfeeding duration, the results support the idea of microbiota transmission and alterations after birth (Figure 13). Daily skin‐to‐skin contact with the mother is associated with better physical conditions and brain development in infants [624, 625, 626]. At 3 years of age, children who received skin‐to‐skin contact interventions also showed fewer internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems [627]. It follows the idea of a healthy maternal gut microbiota co‐shaping the offspring's gut microbiota profile. When gut dysbiosis is induced in mothers exposed to infections during pregnancy and breastfeeding, dietary changes, and stress, it leads to large amounts of inflammatory cytokines (e.g., IL‐17A) or other secondary substances crossing the placenta or entering the mammary gland to directly reach the offspring. This may alter the bioavailability of substances, the immune microenvironment, and the process of initial microbial colonization of the progeny [628] (Figure 13). Dysbiosis of the maternal gut microbiota induces endogenous mastitis development through endotoxemia, leading to a reduction in host anti‐inflammatory enzyme activity in animals [629]. In addition, maternal infections during pregnancy and the postnatal period are likely to directly create the conditions for vertical transmission of susceptible pathogens (Figure 13), leading to a range of adverse outcomes such as neonatal septicemia and meningitis. It is important to note that many viruses may have the ability to cross the placenta and also enter the breast milk during maternal infection [630, 631, 632]. These vulnerable pathogens exhibit diverse pathogenic characteristics and influence the development of neonatal systems through multiple mechanisms. There is no lack of bacteria that can directly attack the newborn's brain during the “window of opportunity” when the body's major barrier functions and saturation are not matched [633]. The virulence factors and secondary inflammatory mediators produced by these bacteria infiltrate the brain without any regulation, leading to severe neurological conditions such as encephalitis and white matter damage. These pathological processes may result in enduring neurological impairments and sequelae [634, 635]. In essence, the impact of maternal microbiota on offspring's microbiota colonization, immune maturation, and intellectual development is obvious. During this critical period, maternal gut microbiota shapes the offspring's early microbiome and immunity, which together regulate normal neurodevelopment through gut–brain communication [636].
Maternal gut microbiota influences offspring's neurodevelopment through microbiota–metabolites–gut–brain axis
Microbial metabolites are biologically active substances produced by microorganisms through decomposition or synthesis in the process of material and energy transformation. Several gut microbial metabolites have an important role in host neurological health and physiological processes [637]. SCFAs, for example, transfer from the intestinal mucosa to the circulation, interfere with immune regulation and enteric nervous system functions, regulate the secretion of neuropeptides, and affect brain functions [638, 639]. SCFAs cross the blood–brain barrier to interact with nerve cells directly. For instance, direct activation of calcium/calmodulin‐dependent protein kinase II (CaMKII)‐labeled neurons in the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) increases their presynaptic glutamate release and fatty acid β‐oxidation levels, which affect social behavior [640]. The microbial metabolite 4‐ethylphenol sulfate can also directly impair the maturation of oligodendrocytes in the paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus, thereby altering activity and functional connectivity in specific areas of the brain and triggering anxiety [641, 642]. Healthy gut microbial metabolites in early life assist the body at appropriate levels in various physiological processes, such as promoting intestinal peristalsis and contraction, participating in cellular signaling transduction, neurotransmitter synthesis, and release, and being responsible for establishing metabolic and immune homeostasis. Therefore, the role of the maternal gut microbiota in neonatal microbial colonization and development, as previously described, significantly influences early‐life microbial metabolism and the establishment of a stable and healthy reciprocal microbial–host symbiotic relationship (Figure 14). Conversely, compromised maternal microbiota under conditions such as dietary changes and exposure to infections may disrupt this delicate synergistic relationship. In brief, the role of maternal gut microbiota in relation to the gut microbiota and metabolic homeostasis of the offspring may contribute to the development of metabolic and neurological disorders (Figure 14). For example, offspring with mothers having impaired metabolic health (e.g., impaired glucose tolerance) also tend to develop metabolic disorders, immunological disturbances, and neurodevelopmental deficits [643]. The neonatal gut microbiota in the maternal group with GDM followed the same trend of changes as the mothers. Compared with the healthy control group, the abundance of glycerophosphorylcholine, glycolic acid, and rhamnose in the fecal metabolites of neonates in the GDM group was significantly lower, while the abundance of riboflavin and taurine was significantly higher. These changes were in line with the trends observed in maternal feces, suggesting that GDM mothers may lead to abnormal microbial distribution and function in their offspring, which will adversely affect the metabolic functions and nutrient absorption of the offspring, posing many potential risks to further growth and development [644]. In mice, maternal high‐fat diets induce intestinal microbiota disorders, neurotransmitter alterations, metabolic function abnormalities, and alterations in the transcription of genes related to brain and neuron development, ion transport, and regulation of membrane potential in the offspring, causing neurodevelopmental deficits [645, 646, 647]. Together, these results demonstrate substantial changes in the composition of the maternal gut microbiota, and its metabolites, when the maternal state is altered. Vertical transmission of them into offspring reprograms infant's gut microbiota and metabolic capacity, affecting the metabolic functions of peripheral cells and organs including brain, thereby altering the neural developmental trajectory [648]. The above research underscores the critical importance of maintaining a healthy maternal microbiome and metabolic state during early life, as it has far‐reaching consequences for the offspring's metabolic health and neurodevelopment.
The mother–infant interactions increase rapidly after childbirth, accompanied by many sensory, perceptual, and behavioral changes. Unsurprisingly, the absence of these sensory perceptions and maternal behaviors affects the physical and psychological development of the offspring as it grows up [649, 650]. In comparison, maternal infection or colonization by specific strains of bacterium triggers a reduction in maternal care (licking, grooming, sniffing, etc.) and nursing of the offspring in mice, which impairs the offspring's access to essential nutrients. Mechanistically, the pups have attenuated serine/threonine kinase Akt signaling and impaired secretion and stability of circulating insulin‐like growth factor 1 (IGF1) in serum, resulting in delayed and impaired development of the offspring's systems [651]. Of course, to some extent, it remains unknown whether dynamic changes in gut microbiota mediate changes in maternal behavior. In addition, the study of metabolites/neurotransmitters that are highly involved in microbiota and behavior, such as serotonin (5‐HT), in the behavior of offspring close to the mother has provided new ideas and perspectives for exploring how microbiome‐derived neuroactive compounds affect offspring's neurodevelopment [652].
On the other hand, maternal gut microbial metabolites during breastfeeding can skip the offspring's phylogeny and directly interact with the brain cells, affecting the development of fetal brain structure and functions. Interestingly, more and more microbial metabolites are used in clinical trials as potential therapeutics for complex diseases [653]. Breast milk is the best natural food for infants, containing almost all the nutrients needed for infant growth and development, including proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, hormones, and other biologically active substances that are closely related to the development of the immune system and the nervous system [654, 655]. Long‐chain fatty acids, iron, choline, folic acid, and sphingolipids in breast milk are significantly associated with early myelin formation in many brain regions of the offspring, providing the basis for the brain links that will support the development of language, cognitive, and behavioral functions [550]. Mechanistically, myo‐inositol, a component of human milk, enhances the ability of neurons to respond to transsynaptic interactions that induce synapses, promoting neuronal connectivity [656]. Notably, 20‐αHydroxycholesterol in human milk induces oligodendrogenesis in mice through a Gli‐dependent pathway, thereby reversing white matter damage [657]. However, the heterogeneous composition of breast milk due to geographic differences in mothers, dietary habits, health conditions, gestational age at delivery, and other factors, as well as the lack of clarity about which components of breast milk are affected by intestinal microbes, poses a serious challenge for research. Most of the current progress in this area is still limited to emphasizing the metabolic, immunomodulatory, and nutritional support effects of dietary components of maternal gut microbial metabolism on infants via breast milk [658, 659, 660]. Significantly, the impact of breastfeeding on neurodevelopment during crucial developmental periods in infants has yet to be adequately explored. To fully understand the role and potential detrimental impacts of changes in gut microbial metabolites present in breast milk on infants' developmental pathways across various life stages and health statuses, more comprehensive histological studies are needed.
Maternal gut microbiota influences offspring's neurodevelopment through the microbiota–immunity–gut–brain axis
The early postnatal periods are critical for the immune system development. Beyond genetics and host biology, gut microbes play a substantial and irreversible role in the immune maturation and overall health of infants [590, 661]. Interactions between the gut microbiome and the local immune system lead to functional changes even beyond the gastrointestinal tract, affecting systemic or central immune status and altering neurodevelopmental trajectories. Gut microbial components or soluble mediators released into the environment elicit host adaptive immune responses, stimulate or regulate immune cell differentiation and development, modulate the inflammatory response, and promote barrier integrity [662, 663]. These substances may be involved in the inflammatory and neurodevelopmental axis, thereby affecting or altering neurodevelopmental trajectories. Additionally, there is no shortage of reports related to their direct regulation of the maturation and function of neural cells in the brain, such as microglia, the primary brain‐resident immune cells [664]. In contrast, newborns, with their immature immune system, heavily rely on mother‐derived microorganisms, metabolites, and immune transfers to establish organismal homeostasis in the face of a new external environment (Figure 14B). Maternal immunity and microbial metabolites influenced by gut microbes at the mother–fetus interface, microbiota transfer during pregnancy and lactation, and transfer of immune substances, microbial components (LPS, peptidoglycans, and DNA [665]), and metabolites through breastfeeding are important sources of microorganisms and immune training in the early stages of the offspring's life [459]. The maternal‐derived microbiota acquired by the offspring during delivery can stimulate the activation of intestinal epithelial cells to acquire immune tolerance and regulate natural defenses and innate immune recognition [666]. Microorganisms in breast milk contribute to infant gut microbial colonization and stimulate the activation and differentiation of T cells and IgA‐producing B cells in the neonatal immune system [667]. Meanwhile, the involvement of certain microbial‐derived metabolites in orchestrating the development of the offspring's immune system has been increasingly documented. In mouse models, maternal dietary soluble fiber intake increases the effect of maternal gut microbial metabolites on the offspring's systemic immune responses [668]. The abundance of human milk oligosaccharides and lactoproteins in breast milk are more involved in the regulation and maturation of the offspring's intestinal barrier as the substrate in the early life period, which promotes the intestinal cell differentiation and mucus production and shapes the contour of the immune microenvironment in the intestinal lumen [669, 670]. Also, milk‐derived extracellular vesicles (mEVs) may regulate the intestinal microbiota structure and intestinal immunity of the offspring through inflammatory signaling pathways and activation of inflammatory vesicles [671, 672]. Nevertheless, a comprehensive understanding of the neurodevelopmental outcomes in offspring affected by these factors remains elusive; hence, there is an urgent need to delve into the communication mechanisms and pathways that underlie the microbiota–immunity–brain axis during the early developmental stages. Concerning the transfer of immunological substances, numerous studies have elucidated the critical role of maternal antibody transmission in promoting the healthy development of offspring [673, 674, 675]. For instance, IgA in mouse milk influences the binding of IgA to commensal bacteria in the offspring's intestine, which in turn determines the number of RORγ+ Tregs through a reciprocal inhibitory relationship, influencing intestinal Treg differentiation and functions as well as immune regulatory tone in mouse generations [578, 676]. However, studies on the effect of maternal microbes on the type and efficiency of antibody transfer across the placental cell barrier and through the mammary gland are still limited. Setting aside the complex role of antibody transfer in the immune homeostatic‐neurodevelopmental exchange in early life, it remains unknown whether microbial‐mediated aberrant alterations or excessive amounts of maternally derived antibodies damage brain structure and functions when the blood–brain barrier is incompletely developed in the offspring. This suggests that while focusing on the maternal and infant immunization link, we may also need to evaluate the association between gut microbes and autoimmune disease with additional care [677], particularly by examining antibodies that are known to reach or present in the offspring's brain. Similarly, in addition to antibody transfer, maternal gut microbiota also modulates some of the immune cells, cytokines, and complement components that influence infant development through breast milk. Single‐cell sequencing and flow cytometry assays have shown that immune cells (e.g., B cells, plasma cells, and macrophages) influenced by maternal gut microbiota are also present in human and mouse milk [678]. Complement in breast milk cleaves specific members of the Gram‐positive intestinal commensal bacteria directly through a C1‐dependent, antibody‐independent mechanism, leading to the deposition of membrane attack complexes and subsequent bacterial lysis to protect the gut from pathogens [679]. However, the role of these immune cells and associated immune mediators in the neurodevelopmental processes of offspring during early life remains to be further elucidated.
Section summary
Early life serves as a critical window for the development of the central nervous and immune systems, as well as the establishment of the gut microbiota, which is sensitive and vulnerable to neurodevelopment. Frequent interactions between a healthy maternal microbiota and the offspring's immune, metabolic, and nervous systems are crucial for guiding brain development in the offspring. Herein, we summarized the possible pathways by which maternal gut microbiota regulates offspring's neurodevelopment from the perspectives of microbial colonization, gene expression, immunity, and metabolism. Despite extensive research on the interactions between the gut microbiota and the nervous system and their transgenerational effects, the communication within the microbiota–gut–brain axis remains intricate and currently challenging to fully comprehend. The decoding of the maternal–fetal interface and the application of various sequencing methods have gradually clarified the pathways by which the maternal microbiota communicates with the fetus. Through a comprehensive analysis of extensive publicly available data sets pertaining to microbiome, we can achieve an in‐depth understanding of the colonization and transformation dynamics of the infant gut microbiome. Moreover, to further enhance our understanding of this intricate biological event occurring in early life, it is imperative to differentiate the structure and functions of the microbiome. This requires future research to delve deeper into elucidating the specific mechanisms underlying maternal gut microbiome transmission and monobacterial colonization in offspring. Additionally, emphasis should be placed on investigating how these processes impact brain health and disease development in the offspring, thereby contributing to a more profound comprehension of basic metabolic, immune, and physiological processes facilitated by this integrative approach. Moreover, there remains a pressing need for more targeted research to develop a thorough understanding of the interactions among various microorganisms, including maternal gut fungal and viral communities, and their influence on the homeostatic functioning of the host system and pregnancy health. Such research should aim to elucidate the potential roles of these microbial networks in offspring neurodevelopment. Investigating variations in gene structure and adaptive evolution during bacterial transmission will facilitate the identification of novel targets derived from the intrinsic capabilities of bacterial communities, which can be leveraged to enhance health and prevent diseases [680, 681, 682]. This endeavor will require extensive longitudinal studies, comprehensive genomic analyses, and rigorous clinical intervention trials.
During pregnancy, the maternal gut microbiota and its associated microbial metabolites are highly dynamic and subject to multiple factors, and these signals serve as the basis for the balance of metabolic profiles in the offspring and the calibration of cellular transcriptional programs. Similar to the metabolic and physiological changes that occur throughout pregnancy, the maternal immune system adapts to the different stages of developmental changes in pregnancy to promote and indoctrinate the offspring's immune development. The neuro‐immune system interactions play an important role in contributing to the maintenance and development of normal neurological functions [462, 672]. Extensive studies using poly I:C and LPS to mimic viral and bacterial infections, respectively, have highlighted common mechanisms affecting offspring neurodevelopment at the maternal–fetal interface. However, the specific impact of particular bacteria, especially those prevalent regionally or in hospitals, on neurodevelopment and immune responses remains underexplored.
A large body of literature suggests that breastmilk has a greater impact on offspring's health and neurodevelopment than formula, controlling for environmental and social factors. This is particularly true for bioactive components [683], such as nutrients, energy metabolism‐related substances, hormones, and neurotransmitters, which are crucial for offspring's development and can be synthesized or metabolized by microorganisms present during the early stages of life. Recent studies suggest that microbiota‐derived metabolites possess the potential to modulate epigenetic inheritance [684, 685]. Consequently, it is proposed that these metabolites are likely to play a crucial role in the interplay between immune‐metabolic functions and neuronal cell fate in offspring. Addressing these research gaps may lead to the goal of improving offspring development and lifelong health during breastfeeding. It also suggests that there is value in determining the origin of substances in breast milk and the utilization of substances in the early life of the offspring. Methodologically, more targeted and untargeted spatial metabolomics, as well as spatial proteomics studies, are needed to discuss and correlate microbiome‐associated metabolites and metabolic pathways with neuroprotective or neurorestorative potential that play a planning role in offspring development. It should be clear that maternal oral and mucosal health, barrier health, autoimmune disease, and gut homeostasis during pregnancy and lactation may all influence the neurodevelopment of the offspring [686, 687, 688, 689].
Moreover, amidst the diversity of maternal gut microbiota and the intricacy of transgenerational impacts, contemporary methods—encompassing high‐throughput sequencing technologies, germ‐free mouse models, and culturomics—enable the gradual identification of pivotal maternal microbial species crucial for offspring's neurodevelopment. The progression in labeling and tracking imaging technologies has granted a more profound understanding of the growth, migration, and metabolic processes of microbes and their byproducts within living organisms. Leveraging integrated big data analytics and machine learning harbors substantial promise for enhancing our comprehension of these intricate biological interplays. Through the application of spatiotemporal mapping and multiomics integrations, such as genomics, metabolomics, and proteomics, researchers can elucidate the destinies of pertinent tissues and cells in impacted offspring and hunt for factors that elevate vulnerability to nerve damage. Merging these methodologies with neuroimaging techniques, like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), may furnish a novel vantage point on the communication and interaction between gut and brain cells, thereby affording deeper clinical insights into the quest for identifying widespread targets for neurodevelopmental disorders and the prophylaxis of brain afflictions.
Acknowledging the neonatal brain's susceptibility to injuries, it is equally important to highlight its extraordinary capacity for regeneration. Timely interventions and treatments are essential to mitigate neurodevelopmental risks. Furthermore, the emerging field of gut–brain axis research underscores the significant potential of the gut as a therapeutic target, especially in relation to neurodevelopment. FMT presents a promising avenue for the treatment of neurodevelopment disorder, such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), grounded in the hypothesis that disruptions in the gut microbiota may play a pivotal role in the etiology of ASD. Preliminary investigations have reported favorable outcomes, suggesting that FMT may modulate gut microbiota and potentially ameliorate ASD‐related symptoms [690]. Nonetheless, comprehensive research is imperative to elucidate the underlying mechanisms, establish the efficacy, and assess the long‐term consequences of FMT in the context of ASD therapy. Probiotics and prebiotics, as safe and effective modulators of gut microbiota [691, 692], offer promising avenues for addressing chronic inflammatory conditions and enhancing overall health, thereby highlighting their potential as invaluable additions to the therapeutic repertoire specifically for promoting neurodevelopment.
CONCLUSION
Intestinal microbiota could influence extraintestinal organs through multiple pathways, including immunomodulation, host cell death, metabolism, and so forth (Figure 15). In contrast, extraintestinal organs may also impact gut microbiota at both compositional and functional levels. Thus, all of the axes may be bidirectional. In addition, the promising strategy to precisely manipulate the gut microbiota may help us to combat the diseases of extraintestinal organs in the future.
Figure 15.

The general modulatory mechanism of “Gut‐X axis”. The intestine, intestinal microbiota and microbial‐derived chemicals could influence immune cell functions, gut permeability and other unknown mechanisms to regulate multiple organs' pathophysiology, including metabolic status, immune reactions, and so forth.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Xu Lin: Conceptualization; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Zuxiang Yu: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Yang Liu: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Changzhou Li: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Hui Hu: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Jia‐Chun Hu: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Mian Liu: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Qin Yang: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Peng Gu: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Jiaxin Li: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Kutty Selva Nandakumar: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Gaofei Hu: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Qi Zhang: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Xinyu Chen: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Huihui Ma: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Wenye Huang: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Gaofeng Wang: Conceptualization; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing; funding acquisition. Yan Wang: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Liping Huang: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Wenjuan Wu: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Ning‐Ning Liu: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Chenhong Zhang: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Xingyin Liu: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; writing—review and editing; writing—original draft. Leming Zheng: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Peng Chen: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
ETHICS STATEMENT
No new animal or human experiments were involved in this study. All data were obtained from publicly available research and complied with ethical standards.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFA0806400, 2022YFA1303900, 2022YFF1100103, 2020YFA0803700, 2023YFA1800904), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82372532, 82202468, 82173888, 81973290, 82172288, 31922003, 81871091, 32422004, 82172326, 82071669, 82301914), the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (2023‐I2M‐2‐006, 2021‐1‐I2M‐027, 2021‐I2M‐1‐028), the Beijing Key Laboratory of Nonclinical Drug Metabolism and PK/PD study (Z141102004414062), the Program of Shanghai Academic/Technology Research Leader (23XD1422300), Innovative research team of high‐level local universities in Shanghai, and the Natural Science Foundation of Beijing, China (NO.L232031; NO.J230039).
Lin, Xu , Yu Zuxiang, Liu Yang, Li Changzhou, Hu Hui, Hu Jia‐Chun, Liu Mian, et al. 2025. “Gut–X axis.” iMeta 4, e270. 10.1002/imt2.270
Xu Lin, Zuxiang Yu, Yang Liu, Changzhou Li, Hui Hu, Jia‐Chun Hu, Mian Liu contributed equally.
Contributor Information
Gaofeng Wang, Email: wanggaofeng@smu.edu.cn.
Yan Wang, Email: wangyan@imm.ac.cn.
Liping Huang, Email: lphuang2006@126.com.
Wenjuan Wu, Email: wwj1210@126.com.
Ning‐Ning Liu, Email: fenghu704@163.com.
Chenhong Zhang, Email: zhangchenhong@sjtu.edu.cn.
Xingyin Liu, Email: xingyinliu@njmu.edu.cn.
Leming Zheng, Email: zhengl@bjmu.edu.cn.
Peng Chen, Email: perchen@smu.edu.cn.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study. Supplementary materials (graphical abstract, slides, videos, Chinese translated version and update materials) may be found in the online DOI or iMeta Science http://www.imeta.science/.
REFERENCES
- 1. Llorente, Cristina , Jepsen Peter, Inamine Tatsuo, Wang Lirui, Bluemel Sena, Wang Hui J., Loomba Rohit, et al. 2017. “Gastric Acid Suppression Promotes Alcoholic Liver Disease by Inducing Overgrowth of Intestinal Enterococcus.” Nature Communications 8: 837. 10.1038/s41467-017-00796-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Li, Fengyuan , Zhao Cuiqing, Shao Tuo, Liu Yunhuan, Gu Zelin, Jiang Mengwei, Li Huimin, et al. 2020. “Cathelicidin‐Related Antimicrobial Peptide Alleviates Alcoholic Liver Disease Through Inhibiting Inflammasome Activation.” The Journal of Pathology 252: 371–383. 10.1002/path.5531 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Duan, Yi , Chu Huikuan, Brandl Katharina, Jiang Lu, Zeng Suling, Meshgin Nairika, Papachristoforou Eleni, et al. 2021. “Crig on Liver Macrophages Clears Pathobionts and Protects Against Alcoholic Liver Disease.” Nature Communications 12: 7172. 10.1038/s41467-021-27385-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Hendrikx, Tim , Lang Sonja, Rajcic Dragana, Wang Yanhan, McArdle Sara, Kim Kenneth, Mikulski Zbigniew, and Schnabl Bernd. 2023. “Hepatic pIgR‐Mediated Secretion of IgA Limits Bacterial Translocation and Prevents Ethanol‐Induced Liver Disease in Mice.” Gut 72: 1959–1970. 10.1136/gutjnl-2022-328265 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Kendong, Ahmad , Maryam Siti, Ali Raja Affendi Raja, Nawawi Khairul Najmi Muhammad, Ahmad Hajar Fauzan, and Mokhtar Norfilza Mohd. 2021. “Gut Dysbiosis and Intestinal Barrier Dysfunction: Potential Explanation for Early‐Onset Colorectal Cancer.” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 11: 744606. 10.3389/fcimb.2021.744606 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Duan, Yi , Llorente Cristina, Lang Sonja, Brandl Katharina, Chu Huikuan, Jiang Lu, White Richard C., et al. 2019. “Bacteriophage Targeting of Gut Bacterium Attenuates Alcoholic Liver Disease.” Nature 575: 505–511. 10.1038/s41586-019-1742-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Chu, Huikuan , Duan Yi, Lang Sonja, Jiang Lu, Wang Yanhan, Llorente Cristina, Liu Jinyuan, et al. 2020. “The Candida albicans Exotoxin Candidalysin Promotes Alcohol‐Associated Liver Disease.” Journal of Hepatology 72: 391–400. 10.1016/j.jhep.2019.09.029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Jiang, Lu , Lang Sonja, Duan Yi, Zhang Xinlian, Gao Bei, Chopyk Jessica, Schwanemann Leila K., et al. 2020. “Intestinal Virome in Patients With Alcoholic Hepatitis.” Hepatology 72: 2182–2196. 10.1002/hep.31459 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Zeng, Suling , Rosati Elisa, Saggau Carina, Messner Berith, Chu Huikuan, Duan Yi, Hartmann Phillipp, et al. 2023. “ Candida albicans‐Specific Th17 Cell‐Mediated Response Contributes to Alcohol‐Associated Liver Disease.” Cell Host & Microbe 31: 389–404.e7. 10.1016/j.chom.2023.02.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Lee, Kuei‐Chuan , Chen Peng, Maricic Igor, Inamine Tatsuo, Hu Jingjuan, Gong Shenhai, Sun Julia C., et al. 2019. “Intestinal iNKT Cells Migrate to Liver and Contribute to Hepatocyte Apoptosis During Alcoholic Liver Disease.” American Journal of Physiology‐Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology 316: G585–G597. 10.1152/ajpgi.00269.2018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Wang, Qinglan , Kim So Yeon, Matsushita Hiroshi, Wang Zhijun, Pandyarajan Vijay, Matsuda Michitaka, Ohashi Koichiro, et al. 2021. “Oral Administration of Pegylated TLR7 Ligand Ameliorates Alcohol‐Associated Liver Disease via the Induction of IL‐22.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 118: e2020868118. 10.1073/pnas.2020868118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Qian, Minyi , Liu Jun, Zhao Danyang, Cai Pengpeng, Pan Chuyue, Jia Wenxin, Gao Yingsheng, et al. 2022. “Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Deficiency in Intestinal Epithelial Cells Aggravates Alcohol‐Related Liver Disease.” Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology 13: 233–256. 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2021.08.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Kouno, Tetsuya , Zeng Suling, Wang Yanhan, Duan Yi, Lang Sonja, Gao Bei, Hartmann Phillipp, et al. 2023. “Engineered Bacteria Producing Aryl‐Hydrocarbon Receptor Agonists Protect Against Ethanol‐Induced Liver Disease in Mice.” Alcohol, Clinical & Experimental Research 47: 856–867. 10.1111/acer.15048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Mouries, Juliette , Brescia Paola, Silvestri Alessandra, Spadoni Ilaria, Sorribas Marcel, Wiest Reiner, Mileti Erika, et al. 2019. “Microbiota‐Driven Gut Vascular Barrier Disruption Is a Prerequisite for Non‐Alcoholic Steatohepatitis Development.” Journal of Hepatology 71: 1216–1228. 10.1016/j.jhep.2019.08.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Schwimmer, Jeffrey B. , Johnson Jethro S., Angeles Jorge E., Behling Cynthia, Belt Patricia H., Borecki Ingrid, Bross Craig, et al. 2019. “Microbiome Signatures Associated With Steatohepatitis and Moderate to Severe Fibrosis in Children With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.” Gastroenterology 157: 1109–1122. 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.06.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Boursier, Jérôme , Mueller Olaf, Barret Matthieu, Machado Mariana, Fizanne Lionel, Araujo‐Perez Felix, Guy Cynthia D., et al. 2016. “The Severity of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Is Associated With Gut Dysbiosis and Shift in the Metabolic Function of the Gut Microbiota.” Hepatology 63: 764–775. 10.1002/hep.28356 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Loomba, Rohit , Seguritan Victor, Li Weizhong, Long Tao, Klitgord Niels, Bhatt Archana, Dulai Parambir Singh, et al. 2017. “Gut Microbiome‐Based Metagenomic Signature for Non‐Invasive Detection of Advanced Fibrosis in Human Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.” Cell Metabolism 25: 1054–1062.e5. 10.1016/j.cmet.2017.04.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Miyamoto, Yu , Kikuta Junichi, Matsui Takahiro, Hasegawa Tetsuo, Fujii Kentaro, Okuzaki Daisuke, Liu Yu‐Chen, et al. 2024. “Periportal Macrophages Protect Against Commensal‐Driven Liver Inflammation.” Nature 629: 901–909. 10.1038/s41586-024-07372-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Nian, Fulin , Wu Longyun, Xia Qiaoyun, Tian Peiying, Ding Chunmei, and Lu Xiaolan. 2023. “ Akkermansia muciniphila and Bifidobacterium bifidum Prevent NAFLD by Regulating FXR Expression and Gut Microbiota.” Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology 11: 763–776. 10.14218/JCTH.2022.00415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Han, Yuqiu , Ling Qi, Wu Li, Wang Xiaosen, Wang Zhifei, Chen Jun, Zheng Zhipeng, et al. 2023. “ Akkermansia muciniphila Inhibits Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis by Orchestrating TLR2‐Activated γδT17 Cell and Macrophage Polarization.” Gut Microbes 15: 2221485. 10.1080/19490976.2023.2221485 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Kuang, Junliang , Wang Jieyi, Li Yitao, Li Mengci, Zhao Mingliang, Ge Kun, Zheng Dan, et al. 2023. “Hyodeoxycholic Acid Alleviates Non‐Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Through Modulating the Gut–Liver Axis.” Cell Metabolism 35: 1752–1766.e8. 10.1016/j.cmet.2023.07.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Nie, Qixing , Luo Xi, Wang Kai, Ding Yong, Jia Shumi, Zhao Qixiang, Li Meng, et al. 2024. “Gut Symbionts Alleviate MASH Through a Secondary Bile Acid Biosynthetic Pathway.” Cell 187: 2717–2734.e33. 10.1016/j.cell.2024.03.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Chen, Bo , Sun Lulu, Zeng Guangyi, Shen Zhe, Wang Kai, Yin Limin, Xu Feng, et al. 2022. “Gut Bacteria Alleviate Smoking‐Related NASH by Degrading Gut Nicotine.” Nature 610: 562–568. 10.1038/s41586-022-05299-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Yan, Tingting , Luo Yuhong, Yan Nana, Hamada Keisuke, Zhao Nan, Xia Yangliu, Wang Ping, et al. 2023. “Intestinal Peroxisome Proliferator‐Activated Receptor α‐Fatty Acid‐Binding Protein 1 Axis Modulates Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis.” Hepatology 77: 239–255. 10.1002/hep.32538 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Fouts, Derrick E. , Torralba Manolito, Nelson Karen E., Brenner David A., and Schnabl Bernd. 2012. “Bacterial Translocation and Changes in the Intestinal Microbiome in Mouse Models of Liver Disease.” Journal of Hepatology 56: 1283–1292. 10.1016/j.jhep.2012.01.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Yan, Jing‐Kun , Wang Chun, Chen Ting‐Ting, Zhu Jie, Chen Xu, Li Longqing, Liu Xiaozhen, Zhang Henan, and Li Lin. 2023. “A Pectic Polysaccharide From Fresh Okra (Abelmoschus Esculentus L.) Beneficially Ameliorates CCl(4)‐Induced Acute Liver Injury in Mice by Antioxidation, Iinhibition of Inflammation and Modulation of Gut Microbiota.” Food and Chemical Toxicology 171: 113551. 10.1016/j.fct.2022.113551 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Chopyk, Daniel M. , Stuart Johnasha D., Zimmerman Matthew G., Wen Jing, Gumber Sanjeev, Suthar Mehul S., Thapa Manoj, Czaja Mark J., and Grakoui Arash. 2019. “Acetaminophen Intoxication Rapidly Induces Apoptosis of Intestinal Crypt Stem Cells and Enhances Intestinal Permeability.” Hepatology Communications 3: 1435–1449. 10.1002/hep4.1406 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Niu, Mengwei , Luo Zhihong, Gong Shenhai, Win Sanda, Kaplowitz Neil, Jiang Yong, and Chen Peng. 2020. “Intestinal Epithelial Chemokine (C–C Motif) Ligand 7 Overexpression Enhances Acetaminophen‐Induced Hepatotoxicity in Mice.” The American Journal of Pathology 190: 57–67. 10.1016/j.ajpath.2019.09.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Xia, Jiafeng , Lv Longxian, Liu Boqiang, Wang Shuting, Zhang Sitong, Wu Zhengjie, Yang Liya, et al. 2022. “ Akkermansia muciniphila Ameliorates Acetaminophen‐Induced Liver Injury by Regulating Gut Microbial Composition and Metabolism.” Microbiology Spectrum 10: e0159621. 10.1128/spectrum.01596-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Cho, Sungjoon , Yang Xiaotong, Won Kyoung‐Jae, Leone Vanessa A., Chang Eugene B., Guzman Grace, Ko Yeonju, et al. 2023. “Phenylpropionic Acid Produced by Gut Microbiota Alleviates Acetaminophen‐Induced Hepatotoxicity.” Gut Microbes 15: 2231590. 10.1080/19490976.2023.2231590 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Li, Dongping , Chen Yu, Wan Meijuan, Mei Fengyi, Wang Fangzhao, Gu Peng, Zhang Xianglong, et al. 2024. “Oral Magnesium Prevents Acetaminophen‐Induced Acute Liver Injury by Modulating Microbial Metabolism.” Cell Host & Microbe 32: 48–62.e9. 10.1016/j.chom.2023.11.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Yip, Lian Yee , Aw Chiu Cheong, Lee Sze Han, Hong Yi Shuen, Ku Han Chen, Xu Winston Hecheng, Chan Jessalyn Mei Xuan, et al. 2018. “The Liver–Gut Microbiota Axis Modulates Hepatotoxicity of Tacrine in the Rat.” Hepatology 67: 282–295. 10.1002/hep.29327 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Liu, Shuiping , Kang Weili, Mao Xinru, Ge Lei, Du Heng, Li Jinyan, Hou Lili, et al. 2022. “Melatonin Mitigates Aflatoxin B1‐Induced Liver Injury via Modulation of Gut Microbiota/Intestinal FXR/Liver TLR4 Signaling Axis in Mice.” Journal of Pineal Research 73: e12812. 10.1111/jpi.12812 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Liu, Yunhuan , Li Jinyan, Kang Weili, Liu Shuiping, Liu Jinyan, Shi Mengdie, Wang Yubo, et al. 2023. “Aflatoxin B1 Induces Liver Injury by Disturbing Gut Microbiota‐Bile Acid‐FXR Axis in Mice.” Food and Chemical Toxicology 176: 113751. 10.1016/j.fct.2023.113751 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Mohd Redzwan, Sabran , Abd Mutalib Mohd Sokhini, Wang Jia‐Sheng, Ahmad Zuraini, Kang Min‐Su, Abdul Rahman Nurul'Aqilah, Nikbakht Nasrabadi Elham, and Jamaluddin Rosita. 2016. “Effect of Supplementation of Fermented Milk Drink Containing Probiotic Lactobacillus casei Shirota on the Concentrations of Aflatoxin Biomarkers Among Employees of Universiti Putra Malaysia: A Randomised, Double‐Blind, Cross‐Over, Placebo‐Controlled Study.” British Journal of Nutrition 115: 39–54. 10.1017/S0007114515004109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Tang, Ruqi , Wei Yiran, Li Yanmei, Chen Weihua, Chen Haoyan, Wang Qixia, Yang Fan, et al. 2018. “Gut Microbial Profile Is Altered in Primary Biliary Cholangitis and Partially Restored After UDCA Therapy.” Gut 67: 534–541. 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-313332 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Liu, Qiaoyan , Li Bo, Li Yikang, Wei Yiran, Huang Bingyuan, Liang Jubo, You Zhengrui, et al. 2022. “Altered Faecal Microbiome and Metabolome in IgG4‐Related Sclerosing Cholangitis and Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis.” Gut 71: 899–909. 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-323565 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Liao, Lijun , Schneider Kai Markus, Galvez Eric J. C., Frissen Mick, Marschall Hanns‐Ulrich, Su Huan, Hatting Maximilian, et al. 2019. “Intestinal Dysbiosis Augments Liver Disease Progression Via NLRP3 in a Murine Model of Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis.” Gut 68: 1477–1492. 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-316670 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Tedesco, Dana , Thapa Manoj, Chin Chui Yoke, Ge Yong, Gong Minghao, Li Jing, Gumber Sanjeev, et al. 2018. “Alterations in Intestinal Microbiota Lead to Production of Interleukin 17 by Intrahepatic γδ T‐Cell Receptor‐Positive Cells and Pathogenesis of Cholestatic Liver Disease.” Gastroenterology 154: 2178–2193. 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.02.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Awoniyi, Muyiwa , Wang Jeremy, Ngo Billy, Meadows Vik, Tam Jason, Viswanathan Amba, Lai Yunjia, et al. 2023. “Protective and Aggressive Bacterial Subsets and Metabolites Modify Hepatobiliary Inflammation and Fibrosis in a Murine Model of PSC.” Gut 72: 671–685. 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-326500 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Tang, Bo , Tang Li, Li Shengpeng, Liu Shuang, He Jialin, Li Pan, Wang Sumin, et al. 2023. “Gut Microbiota Alters Host Bile Acid Metabolism to Contribute to Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy.” Nature Communications 14: 1305. 10.1038/s41467-023-36981-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Qin, Nan , Yang Fengling, Li Ang, Prifti Edi, Chen Yanfei, Shao Li, Guo Jing, et al. 2014. “Alterations of the Human Gut Microbiome in Liver Cirrhosis.” Nature 513: 59–64. 10.1038/nature13568 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Bajaj, Jasmohan S. , Liu Eric J., Kheradman Raffi, Fagan Andrew, Heuman Douglas M., White Melanie, Gavis Edith A., et al. 2018. “Fungal Dysbiosis in Cirrhosis.” Gut 67: 1146–1154. 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-313170 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Mazagova, Magdalena , Wang Lirui, Anfora Andrew T., Wissmueller Max, Lesley Scott A., Miyamoto Yukiko, Eckmann Lars, et al. 2015. “Commensal Microbiota Is Hepatoprotective and Prevents Liver Fibrosis in Mice.” The FASEB Journal 29: 1043–1055. 10.1096/fj.14-259515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Sorribas, Marcel , Jakob Manuel O., Yilmaz Bahtiyar, Li Hai, Stutz David, Noser Yannik, de Gottardi Andrea, et al. 2019. “FXR Modulates the Gut‐Vascular Barrier by Regulating the Entry Sites for Bacterial Translocation in Experimental Cirrhosis.” Journal of Hepatology 71: 1126–1140. 10.1016/j.jhep.2019.06.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Kasahara, Nanaho , Imi Yukiko, Amano Reina, Shinohara Masakazu, Okada Kumiko, Hosokawa Yusei, Imamori Makoto, et al. 2023. “A Gut Microbial Metabolite of Linoleic Acid Ameliorates Liver Fibrosis by Inhibiting TGF‐β Signaling in Hepatic Stellate Cells.” Scientific Reports 13: 18983. 10.1038/s41598-023-46404-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Yuan, Xiaoyan , Yang Junting, Huang Yuling, Li Jia, and Li Yuanyuan. 2023. “Gut Microbiota Metabolite 3‐Indolepropionic Acid Directly Activates Hepatic Stellate Cells by ROS/JNK/p38 Signaling Pathways.” Biomolecules 13: 1464. 10.3390/biom13101464 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Liu, Yunhuan , Chen Kefei, Li Fengyuan, Gu Zelin, Liu Qi, He Liqing, Shao Tuo, et al. 2020. “Probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG Prevents Liver Fibrosis Through Inhibiting Hepatic Bile Acid Synthesis and Enhancing Bile Acid Excretion in Mice.” Hepatology 71: 2050–2066. 10.1002/hep.30975 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Liu, Runping , Kang Jason D., Sartor R Balfour, Sikaroodi Masoumeh, Fagan Andrew, Gavis Edith A., Zhou Huiping, et al. 2020. “Neuroinflammation in Murine Cirrhosis Is Dependent on the Gut Microbiome and Is Attenuated by Fecal Transplant.” Hepatology 71: 611–626. 10.1002/hep.30827 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Bajaj, Jasmohan S. , Fagan Andrew, Gavis Edith A., Kassam Zain, Sikaroodi Masoumeh, and Gillevet Patrick M.. 2019. “Long‐Term Outcomes of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Patients With Cirrhosis.” Gastroenterology 156: 1921–1923.e3. 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Zhang, Xiang , Coker Olabisi Oluwabukola, Chu Eagle Sh, Fu Kaili, Lau Harry C. H., Wang Yi‐Xiang, Chan Anthony W. H., et al. 2021. “Dietary Cholesterol Drives Fatty Liver‐Associated Liver Cancer by Modulating Gut Microbiota and Metabolites.” Gut 70: 761–774. 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319664 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Ponziani, Francesca Romana , Bhoori Sherrie, Castelli Chiara, Putignani Lorenza, Rivoltini Licia, Del Chierico Federica, Sanguinetti Maurizio, et al. 2019. “Hepatocellular Carcinoma Is Associated With Gut Microbiota Profile and Inflammation in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.” Hepatology 69: 107–120. 10.1002/hep.30036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Jia, Xiaodong , Lu Shanshan, Zeng Zhen, Liu Qingyan, Dong Zheng, Chen Yan, Zhu Zhenyu, et al. 2020. “Characterization of Gut Microbiota, Bile Acid Metabolism, and Cytokines in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.” Hepatology 71: 893–906. 10.1002/hep.30852 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Ren, Zhigang , Li Ang, Jiang Jianwen, Zhou Lin, Yu Zujiang, Lu Haifeng, Xie Haiyang, et al. 2019. “Gut Microbiome Analysis as a Tool Towards Targeted Non‐Invasive Biomarkers for Early Hepatocellular Carcinoma.” Gut 68: 1014–1023. 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Ma, Chi , Han Miaojun, Heinrich Bernd, Fu Qiong, Zhang Qianfei, Sandhu Milan, Agdashian David, et al. 2018. “Gut Microbiome‐Mediated Bile Acid Metabolism Regulates Liver Cancer Via NKT Cells.” Science 360: eaan5931. 10.1126/science.aan5931 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Loo, Tze Mun , Kamachi Fumitaka, Watanabe Yoshihiro, Yoshimoto Shin, Kanda Hiroaki, Arai Yuriko, Nakajima‐Takagi Yaeko, et al. 2017. “Gut Microbiota Promotes Obesity‐Associated Liver Cancer Through PGE(2)‐Mediated Suppression of Antitumor Immunity.” Cancer Discovery 7: 522–538. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-0932 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Chen, Wen , Wen Liang, Bao Yingying, Tang Zengwei, Zhao Jianhui, Zhang Xiaozhen, Wei Tao, et al. 2022. “Gut Flora Disequilibrium Promotes the Initiation of Liver Cancer by Modulating Tryptophan Metabolism and Up‐regulating SREBP2.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 119: e2203894119. 10.1073/pnas.2203894119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Zhang, Qianfei , Ma Chi, Duan Yi, Heinrich Bernd, Rosato Umberto, Diggs Laurence P., Ma Lichun, et al. 2021. “Gut Microbiome Directs Hepatocytes to Recruit Mdscs and Promote Cholangiocarcinoma.” Cancer Discovery 11: 1248–1267. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Schneider, Kai Markus , Mohs Antje, Gui Wenfang, Galvez Eric J. C., Candels Lena Susanna, Hoenicke Lisa, Muthukumarasamy Uthayakumar, et al. 2022. “Imbalanced Gut Microbiota Fuels Hepatocellular Carcinoma Development by Shaping the Hepatic Inflammatory Microenvironment.” Nature Communications 13: 3964. 10.1038/s41467-022-31312-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Iida, Noriho , Mizukoshi Eishiro, Yamashita Tatsuya, Yutani Masahiro, Seishima Jun, Wang Ziyu, Arai Kuniaki, et al. 2021. “Chronic Liver Disease Enables Gut enterococcus faecalis Colonization to Promote Liver Carcinogenesis.” Nature Cancer 2: 1039–1054. 10.1038/s43018-021-00251-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Zhou, Peng , Chang Wen‐Yi, Gong De‐Ao, Xia Jie, Chen Wei, Huang Lu‐Yi, Liu Rui, et al. 2023. “High Dietary Fructose Promotes Hepatocellular Carcinoma Progression by Enhancing O‐GlcNAcylation Via Microbiota‐Derived Acetate.” Cell Metabolism 35: 1961–1975.e6. 10.1016/j.cmet.2023.09.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Song, Qian , Zhang Xiang, Liu Weixin, Wei Hong, Liang Wei, Zhou Yunfei, Ding Yanqiang, et al. 2023. “ Bifidobacterium pseudolongum‐Generated Acetate Suppresses Non‐alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease‐Associated Hepatocellular Carcinoma.” Journal of Hepatology 79: 1352–1365. 10.1016/j.jhep.2023.07.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Li, Jun , Sung Cecilia Ying Ju, Lee Nikki, Ni Yueqiong, Pihlajamäki Jussi, Panagiotou Gianni, and El‐Nezami Hani. 2016. “Probiotics Modulated Gut Microbiota Suppresses Hepatocellular Carcinoma Growth in Mice.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113: E1306–E1315. 10.1073/pnas.1518189113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Yu, Jingjing , Zhu Peng, Shi Linlin, Gao Na, Li Yani, Shu Chang, Xu Ying, et al. 2024. “ Bifidobacterium longum Promotes Postoperative Liver Function Recovery in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma.” Cell Host & Microbe 32: 131–44.e6. 10.1016/j.chom.2023.11.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Zheng, Yi , Wang Tingting, Tu Xiaoxuan, Huang Yun, Zhang Hangyu, Tan Di, Jiang Weiqin, et al. 2019. “Gut Microbiome Affects the Response to Anti‐PD‐1 Immunotherapy in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma.” Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer 7: 193. 10.1186/s40425-019-0650-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Che, Yibin , Chen Guoyu, Guo Qianqian, Duan Yourong, Feng Haizhong, and Xia Qiang. 2023. “Gut Microbial Metabolite Butyrate Improves Anticancer Therapy by Regulating Intracellular Calcium Homeostasis.” Hepatology 78: 88–102. 10.1097/HEP.0000000000000047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Singh, Vishal , Yeoh Beng San, Chassaing Benoit, Xiao Xia, Saha Piu, Aguilera Olvera Rodrigo, Lapek John D., et al. 2018. “Dysregulated Microbial Fermentation of Soluble Fiber Induces Cholestatic Liver Cancer.” Cell 175: 679–694.e22. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.09.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Kim, Girak , Chen Zuojia, Li Jian, Luo Jialie, Castro‐Martinez Felipe, Wisniewski Jan, Cui Kairong, et al. 2024. “Gut‐Liver Axis Calibrates Intestinal Stem Cell Fitness.” Cell 187: 914–930.e20. 10.1016/j.cell.2024.01.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Yang, Tao , Richards Elaine M., Pepine Carl J., and Raizada Mohan K.. 2018. “The Gut Microbiota and the Brain‐Gut‐Kidney Axis in Hypertension and Chronic Kidney Disease.” Nature Reviews Nephrology 14: 442–456. 10.1038/s41581-018-0018-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Jansen, Jitske , Jansen Katja, Neven Ellen, Poesen Ruben, Othman Amr, van Mil Alain, Sluijter Joost, et al. 2019. “Remote Sensing and Signaling in Kidney Proximal Tubules Stimulates Gut Microbiome‐Derived Organic Anion Secretion.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116: 16105–16110. 10.1073/pnas.1821809116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Ren, Zhigang , Fan Yajuan, Li Ang, Shen Quanquan, Wu Jian, Ren Lingyan, Lu Haifeng, et al. 2020. “Alterations of the Human Gut Microbiome in Chronic Kidney Disease.” Advanced Science 7: 2001936. 10.1002/advs.202001936 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Sampaio‐Maia, B. , Simões‐Silva L., Pestana M., Araujo R., and Soares‐Silva I. J.. 2016. “The Role of the Gut Microbiome on Chronic Kidney Disease.” Advances in Applied Microbiology 96: 65–94. 10.1016/bs.aambs.2016.06.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Chung, SeonYoon , Barnes Jennifer L., and Astroth Kim Schafer. 2019. “Gastrointestinal Microbiota in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review.” Advances in Nutrition 10: 888–901. 10.1093/advances/nmz028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Ko, Gang‐Jee , Rhee Connie M., Kalantar‐Zadeh Kamyar, and Joshi Shivam. 2020. “The Effects of High‐Protein Diets on Kidney Health and Longevity.” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 31: 1667–1679. 10.1681/ASN.2020010028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Xie, Yanan , Hu Xiaofan, Li Shanglin, Qiu Yang, Cao Rui, Xu Cong, Lu Chenqi, Wang Zhimin, and Yang Jun. 2022. “Pharmacological Targeting Macrophage Phenotype Via Gut‐Kidney Axis Ameliorates Renal Fibrosis in Mice.” Pharmacological Research 178: 106161. 10.1016/j.phrs.2022.106161 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Tang, W H Wilson , Wang Zeneng, Kennedy David J., Wu Yuping, Buffa Jennifer A., Agatisa‐Boyle Brendan, Li Xinmin S., Levison Bruce S., and Hazen Stanley L.. 2015. “Gut Microbiota‐Dependent Trimethylamine N‐Oxide (TMAO) Pathway Contributes to Both Development of Renal Insufficiency and Mortality Risk in Chronic Kidney Disease.” Circulation Research 116: 448–455. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.305360 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Wang, Xifan , Yang Songtao, Li Shenghui, Zhao Liang, Hao Yanling, Qin Junjie, Zhang Lian, et al. 2020. “Aberrant Gut Microbiota Alters Host Metabolome and Impacts Renal Failure in Humans and Rodents.” Gut 69: 2131–2142. 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319766 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Wang, Yuwei , Zhao Jin, Qin Yunlong, Yu Zixian, Zhang Yumeng, Ning Xiaoxuan, and Sun Shiren. 2022. “The Specific Alteration of Gut Microbiota in Diabetic Kidney Diseases—A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Frontiers in Immunology 13: 908219. 10.3389/fimmu.2022.908219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Fan, Gang , Cao Feng, Kuang Tingting, Yi Huan, Zhao Chengcheng, Wang Lijie, Peng Jiayan, et al. 2023. “Alterations in the Gut Virome Are Associated With Type 2 Diabetes and Diabetic Nephropathy.” Gut Microbes 15: 2226925. 10.1080/19490976.2023.2226925 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Hu, Ze Bo , Lu Jian, Chen Pei Pei, Lu Chen Chen, Zhang Jia Xiu, Li Xue Qi, Yuan Ben Yin, et al. 2020. “Dysbiosis of Intestinal Microbiota Mediates Tubulointerstitial Injury in Diabetic Nephropathy Via the Disruption of Cholesterol Homeostasis.” Theranostics 10: 2803–2816. 10.7150/thno.40571 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Kikuchi, Koichi , Saigusa Daisuke, Kanemitsu Yoshitomi, Matsumoto Yotaro, Thanai Paxton, Suzuki Naoto, Mise Koki, et al. 2019. “Gut Microbiome‐Derived Phenyl Sulfate Contributes to Albuminuria in Diabetic Kidney Disease.” Nature Communications 10: 1835. 10.1038/s41467-019-09735-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Chen, Pei Pei , Zhang Jia Xiu, Li Xue Qi, Li Liang, Wu Qin Yi, Liu Liang, Wang Gui Hua, Ruan Xiong Zhong, and Ma Kun Ling. 2023. “Outer Membrane Vesicles Derived From Gut Microbiota Mediate Tubulointerstitial Inflammation: A Potential New Mechanism for Diabetic Kidney Disease.” Theranostics 13: 3988–4003. 10.7150/thno.84650 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Luo, Xin M. , Edwards Michael R., Mu Qinghui, Yu Yang, Vieson Miranda D., Reilly Christopher M., Ahmed S Ansar, and Bankole Adegbenga A.. 2018. “Gut Microbiota in Human Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and a Mouse Model of Lupus.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 84: e02288‐17. 10.1128/AEM.02288-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Azzouz, Doua , Omarbekova Aidana, Heguy Adriana, Schwudke Dominik, Gisch Nicolas, Rovin Brad H., Caricchio Roberto, et al. 2019. “Lupus Nephritis Is Linked to Disease‐Activity Associated Expansions and Immunity to a Gut Commensal.” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 78: 947–956. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214856 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Azzouz, Doua F. , Chen Ze, Izmirly Peter M., Chen Lea Ann, Li Zhi, Zhang Chongda, Mieles David, et al. 2023. “Longitudinal Gut Microbiome Analyses and Blooms of Pathogenic Strains During Lupus Disease Flares.” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 82: 1315–1327. 10.1136/ard-2023-223929 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Schäfer, Anna‐Lena , Eichhorst Alexandra, Hentze Carolin, Kraemer Antoine N., Amend Anaïs, Sprenger Dalina T. L., Fluhr Cara, et al. 2021. “Low Dietary Fiber Intake Links Development of Obesity and Lupus Pathogenesis.” Frontiers in Immunology 12: 696810. 10.3389/fimmu.2021.696810 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Zhao, Jin , Bai Ming, Ning Xiaoxuan, Qin Yunlong, Wang Yuwei, Yu Zixian, Dong Ruijuan, Zhang Yumeng, and Sun Shiren. 2022. “Expansion of Escherichia–Shigella in Gut Is Associated With the Onset and Response to Immunosuppressive Therapy of IgA Nephropathy.” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 33: 2276–2292. 10.1681/ASN.2022020189 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88. Gleeson, Patrick J. , Benech Nicolas, Chemouny Jonathan, Metallinou Eleftheria, Berthelot Laureline, da Silva Jennifer, Bex‐Coudrat Julie, et al. 2024. “The Gut Microbiota Posttranslationally Modifies IgA1 in Autoimmune Glomerulonephritis.” Science Translational Medicine 16: eadl6149. 10.1126/scitranslmed.adl6149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89. He, Jia‐Wei , Zhou Xu‐Jie, Li Ya‐Feng, Wang Yan‐Na, Liu Li‐Jun, Shi Su‐Fang, Xin Xiao‐Hong, et al. 2021. “Associations of Genetic Variants Contributing to Gut Microbiota Composition in Immunoglobin A Nephropathy.” Msystems 6: e00819–e00820. 10.1128/mSystems.00819-20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Derosa, Lisa , Routy Bertrand, Fidelle Marine, Iebba Valerio, Alla Laurie, Pasolli Edoardo, Segata Nicola, et al. 2020. “Gut Bacteria Composition Drives Primary Resistance to Cancer Immunotherapy in Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients.” European Urology 78: 195–206. 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91. Zhang, Zheng‐Wei , Gao Chun‐Sheng, Zhang Heng, Yang Jian, Wang Ya‐Ping, Pan Li‐Bin, Yu Hang, et al. 2022. “Morinda Officinalis Oligosaccharides Increase Serotonin in the Brain and Ameliorate Depression Via Promoting 5‐Hydroxytryptophan Production in the Gut Microbiota.” Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B 12: 3298–3312. 10.1016/j.apsb.2022.02.032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92. Feng, Ru , Shou Jia‐Wen, Zhao Zhen‐Xiong, He Chi‐Yu, Ma Chao, Huang Min, Fu Jie, et al. 2015. “Transforming Berberine Into Its Intestine‐Absorbable Form by the Gut Microbiota.” Scientific Reports 5: 12155. 10.1038/srep12155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Ma, Shu‐Rong , Tong Qian, Lin Yuan, Pan Li‐Bin, Fu Jie, Peng Ran, Zhang Xian‐Feng, et al. 2022. “Berberine Treats Atherosclerosis Via a Vitamine‐Like Effect Down‐Regulating Choline‐TMA‐TMAO Production Pathway in Gut Microbiota.” Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy 7: 207. 10.1038/s41392-022-01027-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94. Zhang, Yifei , Gu Yanyun, Ren Huahui, Wang Shujie, Zhong Huanzi, Zhao Xinjie, Ma Jing, et al. 2020. “Gut Microbiome‐Related Effects of Berberine and Probiotics on Type 2 Diabetes (The PREMOTE Study).” Nature Communications 11: 5015. 10.1038/s41467-020-18414-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95. Wang, Yan , Tong Qian, Ma Shu‐Rong, Zhao Zhen‐Xiong, Pan Li‐Bin, Cong Lin, Han Pei, et al. 2021. “Oral Berberine Improves Brain Dopa/Dopamine Levels to Ameliorate Parkinson's Disease by Regulating Gut Microbiota.” Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy 6: 77. 10.1038/s41392-020-00456-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96. Wang, Yan , Tong Qian, Shou Jia‐Wen, Zhao Zhen‐Xiong, Li Xiao‐Yang, Zhang Xian‐Feng, Ma Shu‐Rong, et al. 2017. “Gut Microbiota‐Mediated Personalized Treatment of Hyperlipidemia Using Berberine.” Theranostics 7: 2443–2451. 10.7150/thno.18290 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97. Pan, Libin , Yu Hang, Fu Jie, Hu Jiachun, Xu Hui, Zhang Zhengwei, Bu Mengmeng, et al. 2023. “Berberine Ameliorates Chronic Kidney Disease Through Inhibiting the Production of Gut‐Derived Uremic Toxins in the Gut Microbiota.” Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B 13: 1537–1553. 10.1016/j.apsb.2022.12.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98. Wang, Yan , Shou Jia‐Wen, Li Xiao‐Yang, Zhao Zhen‐Xiong, Fu Jie, He Chi‐Yu, Feng Ru, et al. 2017. “Berberine‐Induced Bioactive Metabolites of the Gut Microbiota Improve Energy Metabolism.” Metabolism 70: 72–84. 10.1016/j.metabol.2017.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99. Wang, Yingyi , Li Jianping, Chen Chenkai, Lu Jingbo, Yu Jingao, Xu Xuejun, Peng Yin, et al. 2020. “Targeting the Gut Microbial Metabolic Pathway With Small Molecules Decreases Uremic Toxin Production.” Gut Microbes 12: 1823800. 10.1080/19490976.2020.1823800 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100. Zhao, Jing , Zhang Qing‐Li, Shen Jian‐Hua, Wang Kai, and Liu Jia. 2019. “Magnesium Lithospermate B Improves the Gut Microbiome and Bile Acid Metabolic Profiles in a Mouse Model of Diabetic Nephropathy.” Acta Pharmacologica Sinica 40: 507–513. 10.1038/s41401-018-0029-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101. Zhang, Meng , Yang Licheng, Zhu Maomao, Yang Bing, Yang Yanjun, Jia Xiaobin, and Feng Liang. 2022. “Moutan Cortex Polysaccharide Ameliorates Diabetic Kidney Disease Via Modulating Gut Microbiota Dynamically in Rats.” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 206: 849–860. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.03.077 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102. Lee, Jeonghwan , Lee Jinhaeng, Kim Kyuhong, Lee Jiwon, Jung Youngae, Hyeon Jin Seong, Seo Areum, et al. 2024. “Antibiotic‐Induced Intestinal Microbiota Depletion Can Attenuate the Acute Kidney Injury to Chronic Kidney Disease Transition Via NADPH Oxidase 2 and Trimethylamine‐N‐Oxide Inhibition.” Kidney International 105: 1239–1253. 10.1016/j.kint.2024.01.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103. Billing, Anja M. , Kim Young Chul, Gullaksen Søren, Schrage Benedikt, Raabe Janice, Hutzfeldt Arvid, Demir Fatih, et al. 2024. “Metabolic Communication by SGLT2 Inhibition.” Circulation 149: 860–884. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.065517 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104. Li, Zhonghuang , Zheng Liang, Shi Jian, Zhang Guiyu, Lu Linlin, Zhu Lijun, Zhang Jiajie, and Liu Zhongqiu. 2015. “Toxic Markers of Matrine Determined Using (1) H‐NMR‐Based Metabolomics in Cultured Cells in Vitro and Rats in Vivo.” Evidence‐Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2015: 598412. 10.1155/2015/598412 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105. Yu, Jingao , Liu Yang, Guo Jianming, Tao Weiwei, Chen Yanyan, Fan Xiuhe, Shen Juan, and Duan Jin‐ao. 2019. “Health Risk of Licorice‐Yuanhua Combination Through Induction of Colonic H2S Metabolism.” Journal of Ethnopharmacology 236: 136–146. 10.1016/j.jep.2019.01.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106. Gharaie, Sepideh , Lee Kyungho, Newman‐Rivera Andrea M., Xu Jiaojiao, Patel Shishir Kumar, Gooya Mahta, Arend Lois J., et al. 2023. “Microbiome Modulation After Severe Acute Kidney Injury Accelerates Functional Recovery and Decreases Kidney Fibrosis.” Kidney International 104: 470–491. 10.1016/j.kint.2023.03.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107. Zheng, Hui Juan , Guo Jing, Wang Qiuhong, Wang Liansheng, Wang Yahui, Zhang Fan, Huang Wei‐Jun, et al. 2021. “Probiotics, Pprebiotics, and Synbiotics for the Improvement of Metabolic Profiles in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 61: 577–598. 10.1080/10408398.2020.1740645 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108. Li, Hong‐Bao , Xu Meng‐Lu, Xu Xu‐Dong, Tang Yu‐Yan, Jiang Hong‐Li, Li Lu, Xia Wen‐Jie, et al. 2022. “ Faecalibacterium prausnitzii Attenuates CKD via Butyrate‐Renal GPR43 Axis.” Circulation Research 131: e120–120e134. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.122.320184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109. Zhu, Han , Cao Chujin, Wu Zhongcai, Zhang Heping, Sun Zhihong, Wang Meng, Xu Huzi, et al. 2021. “The Probiotic L. casei Zhang Slows the Progression of Acute and Chronic Kidney Disease.” Cell Metabolism 33: 1926–1942.e8. 10.1016/j.cmet.2021.06.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110. Zhou, Wei , Wu Wen‐Hui, Si Zi‐Lin, Liu Hui‐Ling, Wang Hanyu, Jiang Hong, Liu Ya‐Fang, et al. 2022. “The Gut Microbe Bacteroides fragilis Ameliorates Renal Fibrosis in Mice.” Nature Communications 13: 6081. 10.1038/s41467-022-33824-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111. Wanchai, Keerati , Yasom Sakawdaurn, Tunapong Wannipa, Chunchai Titikorn, Eaimworawuthikul Sathima, Thiennimitr Parameth, Chaiyasut Chaiyavat, et al. 2018. “Probiotic Lactobacillus paracasei HII01 Protects Rats Against Obese‐Insulin Resistance‐Induced Kidney Injury and Impaired Renal Organic Anion Transporter 3 Function.” Clinical Science 132: 1545–1563. 10.1042/CS20180148 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112. Mu, Qinghui , Zhang Husen, Liao Xiaofeng, Lin Kaisen, Liu Hualan, Edwards Michael R., Ahmed S Ansar, et al. 2017. “Control of Lupus Nephritis by Changes of Gut Microbiota.” Microbiome 5: 73. 10.1186/s40168-017-0300-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113. Stone, Louise . 2022. “Microbiota Manipulation to Prevent Oxalate Kidney Stone Formation.” Nature Reviews Urology 19: 193. 10.1038/s41585-022-00585-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114. Lobel, Lior , Cao Y Grace, Fenn Kathrin, Glickman Jonathan N., and Garrett Wendy S.. 2020. “Diet Posttranslationally Modifies the Mouse Gut Microbial Proteome to Modulate Renal Function.” Science 369: 1518–1524. 10.1126/science.abb3763 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115. Koehler, Felix C. , Fu Chun‐Yu, Späth Martin R., Hoyer‐Allo K Johanna R, Bohl Katrin, Göbel Heike, Lackmann JAN‐WILM., et al. 2022. “A Systematic Analysis of Diet‐Induced Nephroprotection Reveals Overlapping Changes in Cysteine Catabolism.” Translational Research 244: 32–46. 10.1016/j.trsl.2022.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116. Pan, Libin , Han Pei, Ma Shurong, Peng Ran, Wang Can, Kong Weijia, Cong Lin, et al. 2020. “Abnormal Metabolism of Gut Microbiota Reveals the Possible Molecular Mechanism of Nephropathy Induced by Hyperuricemia.” Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B 10: 249–261. 10.1016/j.apsb.2019.10.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117. Liu, Ning‐Ning , Ma Qiang, Ge Yang, Yi Cheng‐Xiang, Wei Lu‐Qi, Tan Jing‐Cong, Chu Qiao, et al. 2020. “Microbiome Dysbiosis in Lung Cancer: From Composition to Therapy.” Npj Precision Oncology 4: 33. 10.1038/s41698-020-00138-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118. Tichelaar, Jay W. , Lim Lorena, Costa Robert H., and Whitsett Jeffrey A.. 1999. “HNF‐3/Forkhead Homologue‐4 Influences Lung Morphogenesis and Respiratory Epithelial Cell Differentiation in Vivo.” Developmental Biology 213: 405–417. 10.1006/dbio.1999.9380 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119. Ma, Yue , Guo Zhengyan, Xia Binbin, Zhang Yuwei, Liu Xiaolin, Yu Ying, Tang Na, et al. 2022. “Identification of Antimicrobial Peptides From the Human Gut Microbiome Using Deep Learning.” Nature Biotechnology 40: 921–931. 10.1038/s41587-022-01226-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120. Gallacher, David , Mitchell Emma, Alber Dagmar, Wach Richard, Klein Nigel, Marchesi Julian R., and Kotecha Sailesh. 2020. “Dissimilarity of the Gut‐Lung Axis and Dysbiosis of the Lower Airways in Ventilated Preterm Infants.” European Respiratory Journal 55: 1901909. 10.1183/13993003.01909-2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121. Pu, Qinqin , Lin Ping, Gao Pan, Wang Zhihan, Guo Kai, Qin Shugang, Zhou Chuanmin, et al. 2021. “Gut Microbiota Regulate Gut‐Lung Axis Inflammatory Responses by Mediating ILC2 Compartmental Migration.” Journal of Immunology 207: 257–267. 10.4049/jimmunol.2001304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122. Bradley, C Pierce , Teng Fei, Felix Krysta M., Sano Teruyuki, Naskar Debdut, Block Katharine E., Huang Haochu, et al. 2017. “Segmented Filamentous Bacteria Provoke Lung Autoimmunity by Inducing Gut‐Lung Axis Th17 Cells Expressing Dual TCRs.” Cell Host & Microbe 22: 697–704.e4. 10.1016/j.chom.2017.10.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123. Kaur, Harpreet , Kaur Gurjeet, and Ali Syed Azmal. 2023. “IL‐33's Role in the Gut Immune System: A Comprehensive Review of Its Crosstalk and Regulation.” Life Sciences 327: 121868. 10.1016/j.lfs.2023.121868 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124. Samuelson, Derrick R. , Welsh David A., and Shellito Judd E.. 2015. “Regulation of Lung Immunity and Host Defense by the Intestinal Microbiota.” Frontiers in Microbiology 6: 1085. 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01085 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125. Ichinohe, Takeshi , Pang Iris K., Kumamoto Yosuke, Peaper David R., Ho John H., Murray Thomas S., and Iwasaki Akiko. 2011. “Microbiota Regulates Immune Defense Against Respiratory Tract Influenza A Virus Infection.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 5354–5359. 10.1073/pnas.1019378108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126. Arpaia, Nicholas , Campbell Clarissa, Fan Xiying, Dikiy Stanislav, van der Veeken Joris, deRoos Paul, Liu Hui, et al. 2013. “Metabolites Produced by Commensal Bacteria Promote Peripheral Regulatory T‐Cell Generation.” Nature 504: 451–455. 10.1038/nature12726 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127. Trompette, Aurélien , Gollwitzer Eva S., Yadava Koshika, Sichelstiel Anke K., Sprenger Norbert, Ngom‐Bru Catherine, Blanchard Carine, et al. 2014. “Gut Microbiota Metabolism of Dietary Fiber Influences Allergic Airway Disease and Hematopoiesis.” Nature Medicine 20: 159–166. 10.1038/nm.3444 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128. Huang, Yuefeng , Mao Kairui, Chen Xi, Sun Ming‐An, Kawabe Takeshi, Li Weizhe, Usher Nicholas, et al. 2018. “S1P‐Dependent Interorgan Trafficking of Group 2 Innate Lymphoid Cells Supports Host Defense.” Science 359: 114–119. 10.1126/science.aam5809 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129. Dicker, Alison J. , Huang Jeffrey T. J., Lonergan Mike, Keir Holly R., Fong Christopher J., Tan Brandon, Cassidy Andrew J., et al. 2021. “The Sputum Microbiome, Airway Inflammation, and Mortality in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 147: 158–167. 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.02.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130. Sun, Zhe , Zhu Qiu‐Li, Shen Yun, Yan Tao, and Zhou Xin. 2020. “Dynamic Changes of Gut and Lung Microorganisms During Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations.” The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences 36: 107–113. 10.1002/kjm2.12147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131. Chen, Daohong , Zeng Qian, Liu Lu, Zhou Ziyang, Qi Wenchuan, Yu Shuguang, and Zhao Ling. 2023. “Global Research Trends on the Link Between the Microbiome and Copd: A Bibliometric Analysis.” International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 18: 765–783. 10.2147/COPD.S405310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132. Diao, Wenqi , Shen Ning, Du Yipeng, Erb‐Downward John, Sun Xiaoyan, Guo Chenxia, Ke Qian, et al. 2018. “Symptom‐Related Sputum Microbiota in Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.” International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 13: 2289–2299. 10.2147/COPD.S167618 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133. Bowerman, Kate L. , Rehman Saima Firdous, Vaughan Annalicia, Lachner Nancy, Budden Kurtis F., Kim Richard Y., Wood David L. A., et al. 2020. “Disease‐Associated Gut Microbiome and Metabolome Changes in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.” Nature Communications 11: 5886. 10.1038/s41467-020-19701-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134. Li, Naijian , Yang Zhaowei, Liao Baoling, Pan Tianhui, Pu Jinding, Hao Binwei, Fu Zhenli, et al. 2020. “Chronic Exposure to Ambient Particulate Matter Induces Gut Microbial Dysbiosis in a Rat COPD Model.” Respiratory Research 21: 271. 10.1186/s12931-020-01529-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135. Jang, Yoon Ok , Kim Ock‐Hwa, Kim Su Jung, Lee Se Hee, Yun Sunmi, Lim Se Eun, Yoo Hyun Ju, Shin Yong, and Lee Sei Won. 2021. “High‐Fiber Diets Attenuate Emphysema Development Via Modulation of Gut Microbiota and Metabolism.” Scientific Reports 11: 7008. 10.1038/s41598-021-86404-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136. Chan, Kok‐Gan , Ng Kim Tien, Pang Yong Kek, Chong Teik Min, Kamarulzaman Adeeba, Yin Wai‐Fong, and Tee Kok Keng. 2015. “Genome Anatomy of Streptococcus parasanguinis Strain C1A, Isolated From a Patient With Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Reveals Unusual Genomic Features.” Genome Announcements 3: e00541‐15. 10.1128/genomeA.00541-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137. Barcik, Weronika , Boutin Rozlyn C. T., Sokolowska Milena, and Finlay B Brett. 2020. “The Role of Lung and Gut Microbiota in the Pathology of Asthma.” Immunity 52: 241–255. 10.1016/j.immuni.2020.01.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138. Miller, Rachel L. , Grayson Mitchell H., and Strothman Kasey. 2021. “Advances in Asthma: New Understandings of Asthma's Natural History, Risk Factors, Underlying Mechanisms, and Clinical Management.” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 148: 1430–1441. 10.1016/j.jaci.2021.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139. Strachan, D . 2000. “Family Size, Infection and Atopy: The First Decade of the ‘Hygiene Hypothesis’.” Thorax 55(Suppl 1): 2S–10S. 10.1136/thorax.55.suppl_1.S2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140. Rook, Graham A. W. , Lowry Christopher A., and Raison Charles L.. 2013. “Microbial ‘Old Friends,’ Immunoregulation and Stress Resilience.” Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health 2013: 46–64. 10.1093/emph/eot004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141. Stokholm, Jakob , Blaser Martin J., Thorsen Jonathan, Rasmussen Morten A., Waage Johannes, Vinding Rebecca K., Schoos Ann‐Marie M., et al. 2018. “Maturation of the Gut Microbiome and Risk of Asthma in Childhood.” Nature Communications 9: 141. 10.1038/s41467-017-02573-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142. Notarbartolo, Veronica , Giuffrè Mario, Montante Claudio, Corsello Giovanni, and Carta Maurizio. 2022. “Composition of Human Breast Milk Microbiota and Its Role in Children's Health.” Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition 25: 194–210. 10.5223/pghn.2022.25.3.194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143. Stiemsma, Leah T. , Arrieta Marie‐Claire, Dimitriu Pedro A., Cheng Jasmine, Thorson Lisa, Lefebvre Diana L., Azad Meghan B., et al. 2016. “Shifts in Lachnospira and Clostridium sp. in the 3‐Month Stool Microbiome Are Associated With Preschool Age Asthma.” Clinical Science 130: 2199–2207. 10.1042/CS20160349 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144. Shukla, Shakti D. , Budden Kurtis F., Neal Rachael, and Hansbro Philip M.. 2017. “Microbiome Effects on Immunity, Health and Disease in the Lung.” Clinical & Translational Immunology 6: e133. 10.1038/cti.2017.6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 145. Kahhaleh, Fariz G. , Barrientos Gabriela, and Conrad Melanie L.. 2024. “The Gut‐Lung Axis and Asthma Susceptibility in Early Life.” Acta Physiologica 240: e14092. 10.1111/apha.14092 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146. Wang, Wenlan , Luo Xiaoming, Zhang Qin, He Xujun, Zhang Zhifang, and Wang Xinxin. 2020. “ Bifidobacterium Infantis Relieves Allergic Asthma in Mice by Regulating Th1/Th2.” Medical Science Monitor 26: e920583. 10.12659/MSM.920583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147. Ghiamati Yazdi, Fariba , Zakeri Amin, Ark Ingridvan, Leusink‐Muis Thea, Braber Saskia, Soleimanian‐Zad Sabihe, and Folkerts Gert. 2020. “Crude Turmeric Extract Improves the Suppressive Effects of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG on Allergic Inflammation in a Murine Model of House Dust Mite‐Induced Asthma.” Frontiers in Immunology 11: 1092. 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01092 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148. Li, Lingzhi , Fang Zhifeng, Lee Yuan‐Kun, Zhao Jianxin, Zhang Hao, Peng Huaiming, Zhang Yulong, et al. 2022. “Efficacy and Safety of Lactobacillus reuteri CCFM1040 in Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma: A Randomized, Placebo‐Controlled Trial.” Frontiers in Nutrition 9: 862934. 10.3389/fnut.2022.862934 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149. Hashemi Goradel, Nasser , Heidarzadeh Siamak, Jahangiri Samira, Farhood Bagher, Mortezaee Keywan, Khanlarkhani Neda, and Negahdari Babak. 2019. “ Fusobacterium nucleatum and Colorectal Cancer: A Mechanistic Overview.” Journal of Cellular Physiology 234: 2337–2344. 10.1002/jcp.27250 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150. van Esch, Betty C. A. M. , Porbahaie Mojtaba, Abbring Suzanne, Garssen Johan, Potaczek Daniel P., Savelkoul Huub F. J., and Neerven R J Joostvan. 2020. “The Impact of Milk and Its Components on Epigenetic Programming of Immune Function in Early Life and Beyond: Implications for Allergy and Asthma.” Frontiers in Immunology 11: 2141. 10.3389/fimmu.2020.02141 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 151. Kanj, Amjad N. , and Skalski Joseph H.. 2024. “Gut Mycobiome and Asthma.” Journal of Fungi 10: 192. 10.3390/jof10030192 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152. Li, Hui , Wu Xiaorong, Zeng Hong, Chang Bozhen, Cui Ying, Zhang Jingxiang, Wang Ruixia, and Ding Tao. 2023. “Unique Microbial Landscape in the Human Oropharynx During Different Types of Acute Respiratory Tract Infections.” Microbiome 11: 157. 10.1186/s40168-023-01597-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153. Vijay‐Kumar, Matam , Bovilla Venugopal R., Yeoh Beng San, Golonka Rachel M., Saha Piu, Joe Bina, and Gewirtz Andrew T.. 2023. “Bacterial Flagellin Is a Dominant, Stable Innate Immune Activator in the Gastrointestinal Contents of Mice and Rats.” Gut Microbes 15: 2185031. 10.1080/19490976.2023.2185031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154. Knapp, Sylvia . 2016. “Gut to Lung.” Gut 65: 544–545. 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310599 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155. Gauguet, Stefanie , D'Ortona Samantha, Ahnger‐Pier Kathryn, Duan Biyan, Surana Neeraj K., Lu Roger, Cywes‐Bentley Colette, et al. 2015. “Intestinal Microbiota of Mice Influences Resistance to Staphylococcus aureus Pneumonia.” Infection and Immunity 83: 4003–4014. 10.1128/IAI.00037-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 156. Dumas, Alexia , Bernard Lucie, Poquet Yannick, Lugo‐Villarino Geanncarlo, and Neyrolles Olivier. 2018. “The Role of the Lung Microbiota and the Gut‐Lung Axis in Respiratory Infectious Diseases.” Cellular Microbiology 20: e12966. 10.1111/cmi.12966 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157. Xu, Rong , Liu Pengcheng, Zhang Tao, Wu Qunfu, Zeng Mei, Ma Yingying, Jin Xia, et al. 2021. “Progressive Deterioration of the Upper Respiratory Tract and the Gut Microbiomes in Children During the Early Infection Stages of COVID‐19.” Journal of Genetics and Genomics 48: 803–814. 10.1016/j.jgg.2021.05.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 158. Al Khatib, Hebah A. , Mathew Shilu, Smatti Maria K., Eltai Nahla O., Pathan Sameer A., Al Thani Asmaa A., Coyle Peter V., Al Maslamani Muna A., and Yassine Hadi M.. 2021. “Profiling of Intestinal Microbiota in Patients Infected With Respiratory Influenza A and B Viruses.” Pathogens 10: 761. 10.3390/pathogens10060761 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 159. Grayson, Mitchell H. , Camarda Lauren E., Hussain Syed‐Rehan A., Zemple Sarah J., Hayward Michael, Lam Vy, Hunter Desiré A, et al. 2018. “Intestinal Microbiota Disruption Reduces Regulatory T Cells and Increases Respiratory Viral Infection Mortality Through Increased IFNγ Production.” Frontiers in Immunology 9: 1587. 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01587 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 160. Zheng, Xiao , Fu Yingjie, Shi Shan‐Shan, Wu Sha, Yan Yuqi, Xu Liuyue, Wang Yiwei, and Jiang Zhenyou. 2019. “Effect of Forsythiaside A on the RLRs Signaling Pathway in the Lungs of Mice Infected With the Influenza A Virus FM1 Strain.” Molecules 24: 4219. 10.3390/molecules24234219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 161. Qin, Nan , Zheng Beiwen, Yao Jian, Guo Lihua, Zuo Jian, Wu Lingjiao, Zhou Jiawei, et al. 2015. “Influence of H7N9 Virus Infection and Associated Treatment on Human Gut Microbiota.” Scientific Reports 5: 14771. 10.1038/srep14771 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162. Hu, Xiaotong , Zhao Ya, Yang Yong, Gong Wenxiao, Sun Xiaomei, Yang Li, Zhang Qiang, et al. 2020. “ Akkermansia muciniphila Improves Host Defense Against Influenza Virus Infection.” Frontiers in Microbiology 11: 586476. 10.3389/fmicb.2020.586476 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 163. Li, Weiran , Zhu Yu, Liao Qiong, Wang Zhiling, and Wan Chaomin. 2019. “Characterization of Gut Microbiota in Children With Pulmonary Tuberculosis.” BMC Pediatrics 19: 445. 10.1186/s12887-019-1782-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 164. Negi, Shikha , Pahari Susanta, Bashir Hilal, and Agrewala Javed N.. 2019. “Gut Microbiota Regulates Mincle Mediated Activation of Lung Dendritic Cells to Protect Against Mycobacterium tuberculosis .” Frontiers in Immunology 10: 1142. 10.3389/fimmu.2019.01142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 165. Aljumaah, Mashael R. , Bhatia Urja, Roach Jeffery, Gunstad John, and Azcarate Peril M Andrea. 2022. “The Gut Microbiome, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Probiotics: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Middle‐Aged and Older Adults.” Clinical Nutrition 41: 2565–2576. 10.1016/j.clnu.2022.09.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 166. Dillon, S. M. , Lee E. J., Kotter C. V., Austin G. L., Dong Z., Hecht D. K., Gianella S., et al. 2014. “An Altered Intestinal Mucosal Microbiome in HIV‐1 Infection Is Associated With Mucosal and Systemic Immune Activation and Endotoxemia.” Mucosal Immunology 7: 983–994. 10.1038/mi.2013.116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 167. Gu, Ming , Yin Weixiang, Zhang Jiaming, Yin Junfeng, Tang Xiaofei, Ling Jie, Tang Zhijie, et al. 2023. “Role of Gut Microbiota and Bacterial Metabolites in Mucins of Colorectal Cancer.” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 13: 1119992. 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1119992 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 168. Anand, Swadha , and Mande Sharmila S.. 2018. “Diet, Microbiota and Gut‐Lung Connection.” Frontiers in Microbiology 9: 2147. 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 169. Hu, Yongfei , Feng Yuqing, Wu Jiannan, Liu Fei, Zhang Zhiguo, Hao Yanan, Liang Shihao, et al. 2019. “The Gut Microbiome Signatures Discriminate Healthy From Pulmonary Tuberculosis Patients.” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 9: 90. 10.3389/fcimb.2019.00090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 170. Koh, Ara , De Vadder Filipe, Kovatcheva‐Datchary Petia, and Bäckhed Fredrik. 2016. “From Dietary Fiber to Host Physiology: Short‐Chain Fatty Acids as Key Bacterial Metabolites.” Cell 165: 1332–1345. 10.1016/j.cell.2016.05.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 171. D'Argenio, Valeria , and Salvatore Francesco. 2015. “The Role of the Gut Microbiome in the Healthy Adult Status.” Clinica Chimica Acta 451: 97–102. 10.1016/j.cca.2015.01.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 172. Zhao, Yue , Liu Yuxia, Li Shuang, Peng Zhaoyun, Liu Xiantao, Chen Jun, and Zheng Xin. 2021. “Role of Lung and Gut Microbiota on Lung Cancer Pathogenesis.” Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 147: 2177–2186. 10.1007/s00432-021-03644-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 173. Zhao, Feng , An Rui, Wang Liqian, Shan Jikang, and Wang Xianjun. 2021. “Specific Gut Microbiome and Serum Metabolome Changes in Lung Cancer Patients.” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 11: 725284. 10.3389/fcimb.2021.725284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 174. Li, Yan , Deng Qingqing, and Liu Zhanli. 2023. “The Relationship Between Gut Microbiota and Insomnia: A Bi‐Directional Two‐Sample Mendelian Randomization Research.” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 13: 1200299. 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1296417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 175. Wei, Zixin , Yang Biying, Tang Tiantian, Xiao Zijing, Ye Fengzhan, Li Xiaoyu, Wu Shangbin, Huang Jin‐gang, and Jiang Shanping. 2023. “Gut Microbiota and Risk of Five Common Cancers: A Univariable and Multivariable Mendelian Randomization Study.” Cancer Medicine 12: 10393–10405. 10.1002/cam4.5772 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 176. Zheng, Yajuan , Fang Zhaoyuan, Xue Yun, Zhang Jian, Zhu Junjie, Gao Renyuan, Yao Shun, et al. 2020. “Specific Gut Microbiome Signature Predicts the Early‐Stage Lung Cancer.” Gut Microbes 11: 1030–1042. 10.1080/19490976.2020.1737487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 177. Liu, Fang , Li Jingjing, Guan Yubin, Lou Yanfeng, Chen Huiying, Xu Mingyu, Deng Dequan, et al. 2019. “Dysbiosis of the Gut Microbiome Is Associated With Tumor Biomarkers in Lung Cancer.” International Journal of Biological Sciences 15: 2381–2392. 10.7150/ijbs.35980 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 178. Wang, Xiu‐Li , Xu Hua‐Wen, and Liu Ning‐Ning. 2023. “Oral Microbiota: A New Insight Into Cancer Progression, Diagnosis and Treatment.” Phenomics 3: 535–547. 10.1007/s43657-023-00124-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 179. Botticelli, Andrea , Vernocchi Pamela, Marini Federico, Quagliariello Andrea, Cerbelli Bruna, Reddel Sofia, Del Chierico Federica, et al. 2020. “Gut Metabolomics Profiling of Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Patients under Immunotherapy Treatment.” Journal of Translational Medicine 18: 49. 10.1186/s12967-020-02231-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 180. Louis, Petra , and Flint Harry J.. 2017. “Formation of Propionate and Butyrate by the Human Colonic Microbiota.” Environmental Microbiology 19: 29–41. 10.1111/1462-2920.13589 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 181. Lu, Xingbing , Xiong Li, Zheng Xi, Yu Qiuju, Xiao Yuling, and Xie Yi. 2023. “Structure of Gut Microbiota and Characteristics of Fecal Metabolites in Patients With Lung Cancer.” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 13: 1170326. 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1170326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 182. Dumont‐Leblond, Nathan , Veillette Marc, Racine Christine, Joubert Philippe, and Duchaine Caroline. 2021. “Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer Microbiota Characterization: Prevalence of Enteric and Potentially Pathogenic Bacteria in Cancer Tissues.” PloS One 16: e0249832. 10.1371/journal.pone.0249832 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 183. Liu, Ning‐Ning , Yi Cheng‐Xiang, Wei Lu‐Qi, Zhou Jin‐An, Jiang Tong, Hu Cong‐Cong, Wang Lu, et al. 2023. “The Intratumor Mycobiome Promotes Lung Cancer Progression via Myeloid‐Derived Suppressor Cells.” Cancer Cell 41: 1927–1944.e9. 10.1016/j.ccell.2023.08.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 184. Liu, Weici , Pi Zheshun, Liu Ning‐Ning, and Mao Wenjun. 2024. “Into the Era of Mycobiome‐Driven Cancer Research.” Trends in Cancer 10: 389–392. 10.1016/j.trecan.2024.02.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 185. Heshiki, Yoshitaro , Vazquez‐Uribe Ruben, Li Jin, Ni Yueqiong, Quainoo Scott, Imamovic Lejla, Li Jun, et al. 2020. “Predictable Modulation of Cancer Treatment Outcomes by the Gut Microbiota.” Microbiome 8: 28. 10.1186/s40168-020-00811-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 186. Tomita, Yusuke , Ikeda Tokunori, Sakata Shinya, Saruwatari Koichi, Sato Ryo, Iyama Shinji, Jodai Takayuki, et al. 2020. “Association of Probiotic Clostridium butyricum Therapy With Survival and Response to Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Patients With Lung Cancer.” Cancer Immunology Research 8: 1236–1242. 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-20-0051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 187. Jin, Yueping , Dong Hui, Xia Liliang, Yang Yi, Zhu Yongqiang, Shen Yan, Zheng Huajun, et al. 2019. “The Diversity of Gut Microbiome Is Associated With Favorable Responses to Anti‐Programmed Death 1 Immunotherapy in Chinese Patients With NSCLC.” Journal of Thoracic Oncology 14: 1378–1389. 10.1016/j.jtho.2019.04.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 188. Sivan, Ayelet , Corrales Leticia, Hubert Nathaniel, Williams Jason B., Aquino‐Michaels Keston, Earley Zachary M., Benyamin Franco W., et al. 2015. “Commensal Bifidobacterium Promotes Antitumor Immunity and Facilitates Anti‐PD‐L1 Efficacy.” Science 350: 1084–1089. 10.1126/science.aac4255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 189. Green, Jessica Emily , Davis Jessica A., Berk Michael, Hair Christopher, Loughman Amy, Castle David, Athan Eugene, et al. 2020. “Efficacy and Safety of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for the Treatment of Diseases Other Than Clostridium difficile Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Gut Microbes 12: 1854640. 10.1080/19490976.2020.1854640 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 190. Huang, Chunlan , Mei Qixiang, Lou Lihong, Huang Zehua, Fu Yang, Fan Junjie, Wang Jingjing, et al. 2022. “Ulcerative Colitis in Response to Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Via Modulation of Gut Microbiota and Th17/Treg Cell Balance.” Cells 11: 1851. 10.3390/cells11111851 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 191. Matsuoka, Katsuyoshi . 2021. “Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Ulcerative Colitis.” Immunological medicine 44: 30–34. 10.1080/25785826.2020.1792040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 192. Britton, Graham J. , Contijoch Eduardo J., Mogno Ilaria, Vennaro Olivia H., Llewellyn Sean R., Ng Ruby, Li Zhihua, et al. 2019. “Microbiotas From Humans With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Alter the Balance of Gut Th17 and RORγt+ Regulatory T Cells and Exacerbate Colitis in Mice.” Immunity 50: 212–224.e4. 10.1016/j.immuni.2018.12.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 193. De Palma, Giada , Lynch Michael D. J., Lu Jun, Dang Vi T., Deng Yikang, Jury Jennifer, Umeh Genevieve, et al. 2017. “Transplantation of Fecal Microbiota From Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome Alters Gut Function and Behavior in Recipient Mice.” Science Translational Medicine 9: eaaf6397 [pii]. 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf6397 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 194. Sharma, Ravindra K. , Oliveira Aline C., Yang Tao, Karas Marianthi M., Li Jing, Lobaton Gilberto O., Aquino Victor P., et al. 2020. “Gut Pathology and Its Rescue by ACE2 (Angiotensin‐Converting Enzyme 2) in Hypoxia‐Induced Pulmonary Hypertension.” Hypertension 76: 206–216. 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.14931 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 195. Hong, Wei , Mo Qiudi, Wang Luyao, Peng Fang, Zhou Yuming, Zou Weifeng, Sun Ruiting, et al. 2021. “Changes in the Gut Microbiome and Metabolome in a Rat Model of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension.” Bioengineered 12: 5173–5183. 10.1080/21655979.2021.1952365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 196. Cammarota, Giovanni , Ianiro Gianluca, Kelly Colleen R., Mullish Benjamin H., Allegretti Jessica R., Kassam Zain, Putignani Lorenza, et al. 2019. “International Consensus Conference on Stool Banking for Faecal Microbiota Transplantation in Clinical Practice.” Gut 68: 2111–2121. 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319548 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 197. Tanes, Ceylan , Bittinger Kyle, Gao Yuan, Friedman Elliot S., Nessel Lisa, Roy Paladhi Unmesha, Chau Lillian, et al. 2021. “Role of Dietary Fiber in the Recovery of the Human Gut Microbiome and Its Metabolome.” Cell Host & Microbe 29: 394–407.e5. 10.1016/j.chom.2020.12.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 198. Miao, Zelei , Du Wenwen, Xiao Congmei, Su Chang, Gou Wanglong, Shen Luqi, Zhang Jiguo, et al. 2022. “Gut Microbiota Signatures of Long‐Term and Short‐Term Plant‐Based Dietary Pattern and Cardiometabolic Health: A Prospective Cohort Study.” BMC Medicine 20: 204. 10.1186/s12916-022-02402-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 199. David, Lawrence A. , Maurice Corinne F., Carmody Rachel N., Gootenberg David B., Button Julie E., Wolfe Benjamin E., Ling Alisha V., et al. 2014. “Diet Rapidly and Reproducibly Alters the Human Gut Microbiome.” Nature 505: 559–563. 10.1038/nature12820 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 200. Roager, Henrik Munch , Vogt Josef K., Kristensen Mette, Hansen Lea Benedicte S., Ibrügger Sabine, Mærkedahl Rasmus B., Bahl Martin Iain, et al. 2019. “Whole Grain‐Rich Diet Reduces Body Weight and Systemic Low‐Grade Inflammation Without Inducing Major Changes of the Gut Microbiome: A Randomised Cross‐Over Trial.” Gut 68: 83–93. 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314786 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 201. Bisanz, Jordan E. , Upadhyay Vaibhav, Turnbaugh Jessie A., Ly Kimberly, and Turnbaugh Peter J.. 2019. “Meta‐Analysis Reveals Reproducible Gut Microbiome Alterations in Response to a High‐Fat Diet.” Cell Host & Microbe 26: 265–72.e4. 10.1016/j.chom.2019.06.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 202. Chen, Chen , Yang Ting, and Wang Chen. 2022. “The Dietary Inflammatory Index and Early COPD: Results From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.” Nutrients 14: 2841. 10.3390/nu14142841 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 203. Liu, Haiyue , Tan Xilan, Liu Zuheng, Ma Xiaobo, Zheng Yanqing, Zhu Bo, Zheng Gangsen, et al. 2021. “Association Between Diet‐Related Inflammation and COPD: Findings From NHANES III.” Frontiers in Nutrition 8: 732099. 10.3389/fnut.2021.732099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 204. Bolte, Laura A. , Vich Vila Arnau, Imhann Floris, Collij Valerie, Gacesa Ranko, Peters Vera, Wijmenga Cisca, et al. 2021. “Long‐Term Dietary Patterns Are Associated With Pro‐Inflammatory and Anti‐Inflammatory Features of the Gut Microbiome.” Gut 70: 1287–1298. 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322670 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 205. Rodriguez‐Palacios, Alexander , Harding Andrew, Menghini Paola, Himmelman Catherine, Retuerto Mauricio, Nickerson Kourtney P., Lam Minh, et al. 2018. “The Artificial Sweetener Splenda Promotes Gut Proteobacteria, Dysbiosis, and Myeloperoxidase Reactivity in Crohn's Disease‐Like Ileitis.” Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 24: 1005–1020. 10.1093/ibd/izy060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 206. Moreno‐Indias, Isabel , Sánchez‐Alcoholado Lidia, Pérez‐Martínez Pablo, Andrés‐Lacueva Cristina, Cardona Fernando, Tinahones Francisco, and Queipo‐Ortuño María Isabel. 2016. “Red Wine Polyphenols Modulate Fecal Microbiota and Reduce Markers of the Metabolic Syndrome in Obese Patients.” Food & Function 7: 1775–1787. 10.1039/c5fo00886g [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 207. Rinninella, Emanuele , Raoul Pauline, Cintoni Marco, Franceschi Francesco, Miggiano Giacinto Abele Donato, Gasbarrini Antonio, and Mele Maria Cristina. 2019. “What Is the Healthy Gut Microbiota Composition? A Changing Ecosystem Across Age, Environment, Diet, and Diseases.” Microorganisms 7: 14. 10.3390/microorganisms7010014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 208. Liu, Hui , Bai Chen, Xian Fuyang, Liu Shaoyang, Long Chaojun, Hu Li, Liu Tiegang, and Gu Xiaohong. 2022. “A High‐Calorie Diet Aggravates LPS‐Induced Pneumonia by Disturbing the Gut Microbiota and Th17/Treg Balance.” Journal of Leukocyte Biology 112: 127–141. 10.1002/JLB.3MA0322-458RR [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 209. Wei, Xiaoxia , Zhu Chen, Ji Mengmeng, Fan Jingyi, Xie Junxing, Huang Yanqian, Jiang Xiangxiang, et al. 2021. “Diet and Risk of Incident Lung Cancer: A Large Prospective Cohort Study in UK Biobank.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 114: 2043–2051. 10.1093/ajcn/nqab298 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 210. Takada, Kazuki , Shimokawa Mototsugu, Takamori Shinkichi, Shimamatsu Shinichiro, Hirai Fumihiko, Tagawa Tetsuzo, Okamoto Tatsuro, et al. 2021. “Clinical Impact of Probiotics on the Efficacy of Anti‐PD‐1 Monotherapy in Patients With Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Survival Analysis Study With Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting.” International Journal of Cancer 149: 473–482. 10.1002/ijc.33557 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 211. He, Bing , Xu Weifeng, Santini Paul A., Polydorides Alexandros D., Chiu April, Estrella Jeannelyn, Shan Meimei, et al. 2007. “Intestinal Bacteria Trigger T Cell‐Independent Immunoglobulin A(2) Class Switching by Inducing Epithelial‐Cell Secretion of the Cytokine April.” Immunity 26: 812–826. 10.1016/j.immuni.2007.04.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 212. Maranduba, Carlos Magno da Costa , De Castro Sandra Bertelli Ribeiro, de Souza Gustavo Torres, Rossato Cristiano, da Guia Francisco Carlos, Valente Maria Anete Santana, Rettore João Vitor Paes, et al. 2015. “Intestinal Microbiota as Modulators of the Immune System and Neuroimmune System: Impact on the Host Health and Homeostasis.” Journal of Immunology Research 2015: 931574. 10.1155/2015/931574 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 213. Mortaz, Esmaeil , Adcock Ian M., Folkerts Gert, Barnes Peter J., Paul Vos Arjan, and Garssen Johan. 2013. “Probiotics in the Management of Lung Diseases.” Mediators of Inflammation 2013: 751068. 10.1155/2013/751068 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 214. Harata, Gaku , He Fang, Kawase Manabu, Hosono Akira, Takahashi Kyoko, and Kaminogawa Shuichi. 2009. “Differentiated Implication of Lactobacillus GG and L. gasseri TMC0356 to Immune Responses of Murine Peyer's Patch.” Microbiology and Immunology 53: 475–480. 10.1111/j.1348-0421.2009.00146.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 215. Wang, Xinzhou , Zhang Peng, and Zhang Xin. 2021. “Probiotics Regulate Gut Microbiota: An Effective Method to Improve Immunity.” Molecules 26: 6076. 10.3390/molecules26196076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 216. He, Qiuwen , Huang Jiating, Zheng Tingting, Lin Dan, Zhang Heping, Li Jun, and Sun Zhihong. 2021. “Treatment With Mixed Probiotics Induced, Enhanced and Diversified Modulation of the Gut Microbiome of Healthy Rats.” FEMS Microbiology Ecology 97: fiab151 [pii]. 10.1093/femsec/fiab151 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 217. Forsythe, Paul . 2014. “Probiotics and Lung Immune Responses.” Annals of the American Thoracic Society 11(Suppl 1): S33–S37. 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201306-156MG [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 218. Klünemann, Martina , Andrejev Sergej, Blasche Sonja, Mateus Andre, Phapale Prasad, Devendran Saravanan, Vappiani Johanna, et al. 2021. “Bioaccumulation of Therapeutic Drugs by Human Gut Bacteria.” Nature 597: 533–538. 10.1038/s41586-021-03891-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 219. Li, Houkai , He Jiaojiao, and Jia Wei. 2016. “The Influence of Gut Microbiota on Drug Metabolism and Toxicity.” Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology 12: 31–40. 10.1517/17425255.2016.1121234 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 220. Lin, Xiaoxi B. , Farhangfar Arazm, Valcheva Rosica, Sawyer Michael B., Dieleman Levinus, Schieber Andreas, Gänzle Michael G., and Baracos Vickie. 2014. “The Role of Intestinal Microbiota in Development of Irinotecan Toxicity and in Toxicity Reduction Through Dietary Fibres in Rats.” PloS One 9: e83644. 10.1371/journal.pone.0083644 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 221. Teillant, Aude , Gandra Sumanth, Barter Devra, Morgan Daniel J., and Laxminarayan Ramanan. 2015. “Potential Burden of Antibiotic Resistance on Surgery and Cancer Chemotherapy Antibiotic Prophylaxis in the USA: A Literature Review and Modelling Study.” The Lancet Infectious Diseases 15: 1429–1437. 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00270-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 222. Schiavoni, Giovanna , Sistigu Antonella, Valentini Mara, Mattei Fabrizio, Sestili Paola, Spadaro Francesca, Sanchez Massimo, et al. 2011. “Cyclophosphamide Synergizes With Type I Interferons Through Systemic Dendritic Cell Reactivation and Induction of Immunogenic Tumor Apoptosis.” Cancer Research 71: 768–778. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-2788 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 223. Montassier, E. , Gastinne T., Vangay P., Al‐Ghalith G. A., Bruley des Varannes S., Massart S., Moreau P., et al. 2015. “Chemotherapy‐Driven Dysbiosis in the Intestinal Microbiome.” Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 42: 515–528. 10.1111/apt.13302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 224. Shen, Minhong , Smith Heath A., Wei Yong, Jiang Yi‐Zhou, Zhao Sheng, Wang Nicole, Rowicki Michelle, et al. 2022. “Pharmacological Disruption of the MTDH‐SND1 Complex Enhances Tumor Antigen Presentation and Synergizes With Anti‐PD‐1 Therapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer.” Nature Cancer 3: 60–74. 10.1038/s43018-021-00280-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 225. Viaud, Sophie , Saccheri Fabiana, Mignot Grégoire, Yamazaki Takahiro, Daillère Romain, Hannani Dalil, Enot David P., et al. 2013. “The Intestinal Microbiota Modulates the Anticancer Immune Effects of Cyclophosphamide.” Science 342: 971–976. 10.1126/science.1240537 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 226. Daillère, Romain , Vétizou Marie, Waldschmitt Nadine, Yamazaki Takahiro, Isnard Christophe, Poirier‐Colame Vichnou, Duong Connie P. M., et al. 2016. “ Enterococcus hirae and barnesiella Intestinihominis Facilitate Cyclophosphamide‐Induced Therapeutic Immunomodulatory Effects.” Immunity 45: 931–943. 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.09.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 227. Vande Voorde, Johan , Sabuncuoğlu Suna, Noppen Sam, Hofer Anders, Ranjbarian Farahnaz, Fieuws Steffen, Balzarini Jan, and Liekens Sandra. 2014. “Nucleoside‐Catabolizing Enzymes in Mycoplasma‐Infected Tumor Cell Cultures Compromise the Cytostatic Activity of the Anticancer Drug Gemcitabine.” Journal of Biological Chemistry 289: 13054–13065. 10.1074/jbc.M114.558924 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 228. Fijlstra, Margot , Ferdous Mithila, Koning Anne M., Rings Edmond H. H. M., Harmsen Hermie J. M., and Tissing Wim J. E.. 2015. “Substantial Decreases in the Number and Diversity of Microbiota During Chemotherapy‐Induced Gastrointestinal Mucositis in a Rat Model.” Supportive Care in Cancer 23: 1513–1522. 10.1007/s00520-014-2487-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 229. Vétizou, Marie , Pitt Jonathan M., Daillère Romain, Lepage Patricia, Waldschmitt Nadine, Flament Caroline, Rusakiewicz Sylvie, et al. 2015. “Anticancer Immunotherapy by CTLA‐4 Blockade Relies on the Gut Microbiota.” Science 350: 1079–1084. 10.1126/science.aad1329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 230. Yang, Kaiying , Hou Rongyao, Zhao Jie, Wang Xia, Wei Jin, Pan Xudong, and Zhu Xiaoyan. 2023. “Lifestyle Effects on Aging and CVD: A Spotlight on the Nutrient‐Sensing Network.” Ageing Research Reviews 92: 102121. 10.1016/j.arr.2023.102121 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 231. Liu, Yang , Fachrul Muhamad, Inouye Michael, and Méric Guillaume. 2024. “Harnessing Human Microbiomes for Disease Prediction.” Trends in Microbiology 32: 707–719. 10.1016/j.tim.2023.12.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 232. Ahlawat, S. , Asha I., and Sharma K. K.. 2021. “Gut‐Organ Axis: A Microbial Outreach and Networking.” Letters in Applied Microbiology 72: 636–668. 10.1111/lam.13333 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 233. Wang, Zeneng , Klipfell Elizabeth, Bennett Brian J., Koeth Robert, Levison Bruce S., Dugar Brandon, Feldstein Ariel E., et al. 2011. “Gut Flora Metabolism of Phosphatidylcholine Promotes Cardiovascular Disease.” Nature 472: 57–63. 10.1038/nature09922 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 234. Brunt, Vienna E. , Gioscia‐Ryan Rachel A., Richey James J., Zigler Melanie C., Cuevas Lauren M., Gonzalez Antonio, Vázquez‐Baeza Yoshiki, et al. 2019. “Suppression of the Gut Microbiome Ameliorates Age‐Related Arterial Dysfunction and Oxidative Stress in Mice.” The Journal of Physiology 597: 2361–2378. 10.1113/JP277336 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 235. Ke, Yilang , Li Dang, Zhao Mingming, Liu Changjie, Liu Jia, Zeng Aiping, Shi Xiaoyun, et al. 2018. “Gut Flora‐Dependent Metabolite Trimethylamine‐N‐Oxide Accelerates Endothelial Cell Senescence and Vascular Aging Through Oxidative Stress.” Free Radical Biology & Medicine 116: 88–100. 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2018.01.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 236. Brown, J Mark , and Hazen Stanley L.. 2018. “Microbial Modulation of Cardiovascular Disease.” Nature Reviews Microbiology 16: 171–181. 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 237. Jie, Zhuye , Xia Huihua, Zhong Shi‐Long, Feng Qiang, Li Shenghui, Liang Suisha, Zhong Huanzi, et al. 2017. “The Gut Microbiome in Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.” Nature Communications 8: 845. 10.1038/s41467-017-00900-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 238. Bennett, Brian J. , Vallim Thomas Q. de Aguiar, Wang Zeneng, Shih Diana M., Meng Yonghong, Gregory Jill, Allayee Hooman, et al. 2013. “Trimethylamine‐N‐oxide, a Metabolite Associated With Atherosclerosis, Exhibits Complex Genetic and Dietary Regulation.” Cell Metabolism 17: 49–60. 10.1016/j.cmet.2012.12.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 239. Cai, Yuan‐Yuan , Huang Feng‐Qing, Lao Xingzhen, Lu Yawen, Gao Xuejiao, Alolga Raphael N., Yin Kunpeng, et al. 2022. “Integrated Metagenomics Identifies a Crucial Role for Trimethylamine‐Producing Lachnoclostridium in Promoting Atherosclerosis.” NPJ Biofilms and Microbiomes 8: 11. 10.1038/s41522-022-00273-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 240. Chen, Ming‐liang , Zhu Xiao‐hui, Ran Li, Lang He‐dong, Yi Long, and Mi Man‐tian. 2017. “Trimethylamine‐N‐Oxide Induces Vascular Inflammation by Activating the NLRP3 Inflammasome Through the SIRT3‐SOD2‐mtROS Signaling Pathway.” Journal of the American Heart Association 6: e006347. 10.1161/JAHA.117.006347 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 241. Wu, Peng , Chen JinNa, Chen JiaoJiao, Tao Jun, Wu ShiYuan, Xu GaoSheng, Wang Zuo, Wei DangHeng, and Yin WeiDong. 2020. “Trimethylamine N‐Oxide Promotes Apoe−/− Mice Atherosclerosis by Inducing Vascular Endothelial Cell Pyroptosis via the SDHB/ROS Pathway.” Journal of Cellular Physiology 235: 6582–6591. 10.1002/jcp.29518 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 242. Koeth, Robert A. , Lam‐Galvez Betzabe Rachel, Kirsop Jennifer, Wang Zeneng, Levison Bruce S., Gu Xiaodong, Copeland Matthew F., et al. 2019. “L‐Carnitine in Omnivorous Diets Induces an Atherogenic Gut Microbial Pathway in Humans.” The Journal of Clinical Investigation 129: 373–387. 10.1172/JCI94601 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 243. Luo, Tiantian , Guo Zhigang, Liu Dan, Guo Zhongzhou, Wu Qiao, Li Qinxian, Lin Rongzhan, et al. 2022. “Deficiency of PSRC1 Accelerates Atherosclerosis by Increasing TMAO Production Via Manipulating Gut Microbiota and Flavin Monooxygenase 3.” Gut Microbes 14: 2077602. 10.1080/19490976.2022.2077602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 244. Tang, Jinghui , Qin Manman, Tang Le, Shan Dan, Zhang Cheng, Zhang Yifeng, Wei Hua, et al. 2021. “ Enterobacter aerogenes ZDY01 Inhibits Choline‐Induced Atherosclerosis Through CDCA‐FXR‐FGF15 Axis.” Food & Function 12: 9932–9946. 10.1039/d1fo02021h [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 245. Zhu, Yijun , Dwidar Mohammed, Nemet Ina, Buffa Jennifer A., Sangwan Naseer, Li Xinmin S., Anderson James T., et al. 2023. “Two Distinct Gut Microbial Pathways Contribute to Meta‐Organismal Production of Phenylacetylglutamine With Links to Cardiovascular Disease.” Cell Host & Microbe 31: 18–32.e9. 10.1016/j.chom.2022.11.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 246. Nemet, Ina , Saha Prasenjit Prasad, Gupta Nilaksh, Zhu Weifei, Romano Kymberleigh A., Skye Sarah M., Cajka Tomas, et al. 2020. “A Cardiovascular Disease‐Linked Gut Microbial Metabolite Acts Via Adrenergic Receptors.” Cell 180: 862–877.e22. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 247. Haghikia, Arash , Zimmermann Friederike, Schumann Paul, Jasina Andrzej, Roessler Johann, Schmidt David, Heinze Philipp, et al. 2022. “Propionate Attenuates Atherosclerosis by Immune‐Dependent Regulation of Intestinal Cholesterol Metabolism.” European Heart Journal 43: 518–533. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab644 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 248. Shen, Hao‐Ran , Wang Zhi‐Yu, Shen Zhen, Liu Tong‐Tong, Guo Yun‐Dan, Gao Tian‐Le, Guo Hui‐Hui, et al. 2023. “Bacterial Butyrate Mediates the Anti‐Atherosclerotic Effect of Silybin.” Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy 169: 115916. 10.1016/j.biopha.2023.115916 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 249. Wang, Yusheng , Xie Yandan, Mahara Gehendra, Xiong Yanling, Xiong Yalan, Zheng Qifang, Chen Jianqin, et al. 2024. “Intestinal Microbiota and Metabolome Perturbations in Ischemic and Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy.” Journal of Translational Medicine 22: 89. 10.1186/s12967-023-04605-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 250. Koren, Omry , Spor Aymé, Felin Jenny, Fåk Frida, Stombaugh Jesse, Tremaroli Valentina, Behre Carl Johan, et al. 2011. “Human Oral, Gut, and Plaque Microbiota in Patients With Atherosclerosis.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(Suppl 1): 4592–4598. 10.1073/pnas.1011383107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 251. Yang, Yang , Zhao Ming, He Xi, Wu Qing, Li Dong‐Ling, and Zang Wei‐Jin. 2021. “Pyridostigmine Protects Against Diabetic Cardiomyopathy by Regulating Vagal Activity, Gut Microbiota, and Branched‐Chain Amino Acid Catabolism in Diabetic Mice.” Frontiers in Pharmacology 12: 647481. 10.3389/fphar.2021.647481 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 252. Zheng, Hong , Zhang Xi, Li Chen, Wang Die, Shen Yuying, Lu Jiahui, Zhao Liangcai, Li Xiaokun, and Gao Hongchang. 2024. “BCAA Mediated Microbiota‐Liver‐Heart Crosstalk Regulates Diabetic Cardiomyopathy Via FGF21.” Microbiome 12: 157. 10.1186/s40168-024-01872-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 253. Zhao, Jinxuan , Zhang Qi, Cheng Wei, Dai Qing, Wei Zhonghai, Guo Meng, Chen Fu, et al. 2023. “Heart‐Gut Microbiota Communication Determines the Severity of Cardiac Injury After Myocardial Ischaemia/Reperfusion.” Cardiovascular Research 119: 1390–1402. 10.1093/cvr/cvad023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 254. Zhang, Yixin , Wang Yuan, Ke Bingbing, and Du Jie. 2021. “Tmao: How Gut Microbiota Contributes to Heart Failure.” Translational Research 228: 109–125. 10.1016/j.trsl.2020.08.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 255. Carrillo‐Salinas, Francisco J. , Anastasiou Marina, Ngwenyama Njabulo, Kaur Kuljeet, Tai Albert, Smolgovsky Sasha A., Jetton David, Aronovitz Mark, and Alcaide Pilar. 2020. “Gut Dysbiosis Induced by Cardiac Pressure Overload Enhances Adverse Cardiac Remodeling in a T Cell‐Dependent Manner.” Gut Microbes 12: 1823801. 10.1080/19490976.2020.1823801 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 256. Li, Wensheng , Huang Anqing, Zhu Hailan, Liu Xinyue, Huang Xiaohui, Huang Yan, Cai Xiaoyan, Lu Jianhua, and Huang Yuli. 2020. “Gut Microbiota‐Derived Trimethylamine N‐Oxide Is Associated With Poor Prognosis in Patients With Heart Failure.” Medical Journal of Australia 213: 374–379. 10.5694/mja2.50781 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 257. Wang, Guangji , Kong Bin, Shuai Wei, Fu Hui, Jiang Xiaobo, and Huang He. 2020. “3,3‐Dimethyl‐1‐Butanol Attenuates Cardiac Remodeling in Pressure‐Overload‐Induced Heart Failure Mice.” The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry 78: 108341. 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2020.108341 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 258. Morón‐Ros, Samantha , Blasco‐Roset Albert, Navarro‐Gascon Artur, Rupérez Celia, Zamora Monica, Crispi Fatima, Uriarte Iker, et al. 2023. “A New FGF15/19‐Mediated Gut‐to‐Heart Axis Controls Cardiac Hypertrophy.” The Journal of Pathology 261: 335–348. 10.1002/path.6193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 259. Zhao, Mingming , Wei Haoran, Li Chenze, Zhan Rui, Liu Changjie, Gao Jianing, Yi Yaodong, et al. 2022. “Gut Microbiota Production of Trimethyl‐5‐Aminovaleric Acid Reduces Fatty Acid Oxidation and Accelerates Cardiac Hypertrophy.” Nature Communications 13: 1757. 10.1038/s41467-022-29060-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 260. Makrecka‐Kuka, Marina , Volska Kristine, Antone Unigunde, Vilskersts Reinis, Grinberga Solveiga, Bandere Dace, Liepinsh Edgars, and Dambrova Maija. 2017. “Trimethylamine N‐Oxide Impairs Pyruvate and Fatty Acid Oxidation in Cardiac Mitochondria.” Toxicology Letters 267: 32–38. 10.1016/j.toxlet.2016.12.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 261. Wang, Yu‐Chen , Koay Yen Chin, Pan Calvin, Zhou Zhiqiang, Tang Wilson, Wilcox Jennifer, Li Xinmin S., et al. 2024. “Indole‐3‐Propionic Acid Protects Against Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.” Circulation Research 134: 371–389. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.123.322381 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 262. Shi, Bozhong , Zhang Xiaoyang, Song Zhiying, Dai Zihao, Luo Kai, Chen Bo, Zhou Zijie, et al. 2023. “Targeting Gut Microbiota‐Derived Kynurenine to Predict and Protect the Remodeling of the Pressure‐Overloaded Young Heart.” Science Advances 9: eadg7417. 10.1126/sciadv.adg7417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 263. Song, Tongtong , Guan Xin, Wang Xuan, Qu Shanshan, Zhang Siwei, Hui Wenting, Men Lihui, and Chen Xia. 2021. “Dynamic Modulation of Gut Microbiota Improves Post‐Myocardial Infarct Tissue Repair in Rats Via Butyric Acid‐Mediated Histone Deacetylase Inhibition.” The FASEB Journal 35: e21385. 10.1096/fj.201903129RRR [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 264. Li, Jing , Zhao Fangqing, Wang Yidan, Chen Junru, Tao Jie, Tian Gang, Wu Shouling, et al. 2017. “Gut Microbiota Dysbiosis Contributes to the Development of Hypertension.” Microbiome 5: 14. 10.1186/s40168-016-0222-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 265. Kim, Seungbum , Goel Ruby, Kumar Ashok, Qi Yanfei, Lobaton Gil, Hosaka Koji, Mohammed Mohammed, et al. 2018. “Imbalance of Gut Microbiome and Intestinal Epithelial Barrier Dysfunction in Patients With High Blood Pressure.” Clinical Science 132: 701–718. 10.1042/CS20180087 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 266. Wilck, Nicola , Matus Mariana G., Kearney Sean M., Olesen Scott W., Forslund Kristoffer, Bartolomaeus Hendrik, Haase Stefanie, et al. 2017. “Salt‐Responsive Gut Commensal Modulates TH17 Axis and Disease.” Nature 551: 585–589. 10.1038/nature24628 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 267. Yan, Xuefang , Jin Jiajia, Su Xinhuan, Yin Xianlun, Gao Jing, Wang Xiaowei, Zhang Shucui, et al. 2020. “Intestinal Flora Modulates Blood Pressure by Regulating the Synthesis of Intestinal‐Derived Corticosterone in High Salt‐Induced Hypertension.” Circulation Research 126: 839–853. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.119.316394 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 268. Jiang, Shan , Shui Yongjie, Cui Yu, Tang Chun, Wang Xiaohua, Qiu Xingyu, Hu Weipeng, et al. 2021. “Gut Microbiota Dependent Trimethylamine N‐Oxide Aggravates Angiotensin II‐Induced Hypertension.” Redox Biology 46: 102115. 10.1016/j.redox.2021.102115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 269. Kaye, David M. , Shihata Waled A., Jama Hamdi A., Tsyganov Kirill, Ziemann Mark, Kiriazis Helen, Horlock Duncan, et al. 2020. “Deficiency of Prebiotic Fiber and Insufficient Signaling Through Gut Metabolite‐Sensing Receptors Leads to Cardiovascular Disease.” Circulation 141: 1393–1403. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.043081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 270. Keppeler, Karin , Pesi Aline, Lange Simon, Helmstädter Johanna, Strohm Lea, Ubbens Henning, Kuntić Marin, et al. 2024. “Vascular Dysfunction and Arterial Hypertension in Experimental Celiac Disease Are Mediated by Gut‐Derived Inflammation and Oxidative Stress.” Redox Biology 70: 103071. 10.1016/j.redox.2024.103071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 271. Mekki, Khedidja , Bouzidi‐bekada Nassima, Kaddous Abbou, and Bouchenak Malika. 2010. “Mediterranean Diet Improves Dyslipidemia and Biomarkers in Chronic Renal Failure Patients.” Food & Function 1: 110−5. 10.1039/c0fo00032a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 272. Marques, Francine Z. , Nelson Erin, Chu Po‐Yin, Horlock Duncan, Fiedler April, Ziemann Mark, Tan Jian K., et al. 2017. “High‐Fiber Diet and Acetate Supplementation Change the Gut Microbiota and Prevent the Development of Hypertension and Heart Failure in Hypertensive Mice.” Circulation 135: 964–977. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.024545 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 273. Yang, Fen , Xia Ni, Guo Shuang, Zhang Jiyu, Liao Yuhan, Tang Tingting, Nie Shaofang, et al. 2022. “Propionate Alleviates Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm by Modulating Colonic Regulatory T‐Cell Expansion and Recirculation.” JACC 7: 934–947. 10.1016/j.jacbts.2022.05.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 274. Shi, Huanan , Zhang Bojun, Abo‐Hamzy Taylor, Nelson James W., Ambati Chandra Shekar R., Petrosino Joseph F., Bryan Robert M., and Durgan David J.. 2021. “Restructuring the Gut Microbiota by Intermittent Fasting Lowers Blood Pressure.” Circulation Research 128: 1240–1254. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.318155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 275. Maifeld, András , Bartolomaeus Hendrik, Löber Ulrike, Avery Ellen G., Steckhan Nico, Markó Lajos, Wilck Nicola, et al. 2021. “Fasting Alters the Gut Microbiome Reducing Blood Pressure and Body Weight in Metabolic Syndrome Patients.” Nature Communications 12: 1970. 10.1038/s41467-021-22097-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 276. Zhang, Yong , Zheng Tingting, Ma Da, Shi Peng, Zhang Heping, Li Jun, and Sun Zhihong. 2023. “Probiotics Bifidobacterium lactis M8 and Lactobacillus rhamnosus M9 Prevent High Blood Pressure Via Modulating the Gut Microbiota Composition and Host Metabolic Products.” mSystems 8: e0033123. 10.1128/msystems.00331-23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 277. Gómez‐Guzmán, Manuel , Toral Marta, Romero Miguel, Jiménez Rosario, Galindo Pilar, Sánchez Manuel, Zarzuelo María José, et al. 2015. “Antihypertensive Effects of Probiotics Lactobacillus Strains in Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats.” Molecular Nutrition & Food Research 59: 2326–2336. 10.1002/mnfr.201500290 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 278. Yang, Hai‐Tao , Jiang Zhi‐Hui, Yang Yi, Wu Ting‐Ting, Zheng Ying‐Ying, Ma Yi‐Tong, and Xie Xiang. 2024. “ Faecalibacterium prausnitzii as a Potential Antiatherosclerotic Microbe.” Cell Communication and Signaling 22: 54. 10.1186/s12964-023-01464-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 279. He, Xin , Bai Yang, Zhou Haiyang, and Wu Kemin. 2022. “ Akkermansia muciniphila Alters Gut Microbiota and Immune System to Improve Cardiovascular Diseases in Murine Model.” Frontiers In Microbiology 13: 906920. 10.3389/fmicb.2022.906920 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 280. Costanza, Annelise C. , Moscavitch Samuel D., Faria Neto Hugo C. C., and Mesquita Evandro T.. 2015. “Probiotic Therapy With Saccharomyces boulardii for Heart Failure Patients: A Randomized, Double‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled Pilot Trial.” International Journal of Cardiology 179: 348–350. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.11.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 281. Song, Shasha , Guo Yuanyuan, Yang Yuehua, and Fu Dehao. 2022. “Advances in Pathogenesis and Therapeutic Strategies for Osteoporosis.” Pharmacology & Therapeutics 237: 108168. 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2022.108168 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 282. Ahire, Jayesh J. , Kumar Vikram, and Rohilla Alka. 2024. “Understanding Osteoporosis: Human Bone Density, Genetic Mechanisms, Gut Microbiota, and Future Prospects.” Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins 16: 875–883. 10.1007/s12602-023-10185-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 283. Lyu, Zhengtian , Hu Yongfei, Guo Yuming, and Liu Dan. 2023. “Modulation of Bone Remodeling by the Gut Microbiota: A New Therapy for Osteoporosis.” Bone Research 11: 31. 10.1038/s41413-023-00264-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 284. Sjögren, Klara , Engdahl Cecilia, Henning Petra, Lerner Ulf H., Tremaroli Valentina, Lagerquist Marie K., Bäckhed Fredrik, and Ohlsson Claes. 2012. “The Gut Microbiota Regulates Bone Mass in Mice.” Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 27: 1357–1367. 10.1002/jbmr.1588 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 285. Guan, Zhiyuan , Xuanqi Zheng, Zhu Junxiong, Yuan Wanqiong, Jia Jialin, Zhang Chenggui, Sun Tiantong, et al. 2023. “Estrogen Deficiency Induces Bone Loss Through the Gut Microbiota.” Pharmacological Research 196: 106930. 10.1016/j.phrs.2023.106930 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 286. Zuo, Haojiang , Zheng Tianli, Wu Kunpeng, Yang Tingting, Wang Lingyao, Nima Qucuo, Bai Hua, et al. 2022. “High‐Altitude Exposure Decreases Bone Mineral Density and Its Relationship With Gut Microbiota: Results From the China Multi‐Ethnic Cohort (CMEC) Study.” Environmental Research 215: 114206. 10.1016/j.envres.2022.114206 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 287. Ni, Jing‐Jing , Yang Xiao‐Lin, Zhang Hong, Xu Qian, Wei Xin‐Tong, Feng Gui‐Juan, Zhao Min, Pei Yu‐Fang, and Zhang Lei. 2021. “Assessing Causal Relationship From Gut Microbiota to Heel Bone Mineral Density.” Bone 143: 115652. 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115652 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 288. Chen, Yuan‐Cheng , Greenbaum Jonathan, Shen Hui, and Deng Hong‐Wen. 2017. “Association Between Gut Microbiota and Bone Health: Potential Mechanisms and Prospective.” The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 102: 3635–3646. 10.1210/jc.2017-00513 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 289. Xu, Xin , Jia Xiaoyue, Mo Longyi, Liu Chengcheng, Zheng Liwei, Yuan Quan, and Zhou Xuedong. 2017. “Intestinal Microbiota: A Potential Target for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis.” Bone Research 5: 17046. 10.1038/boneres.2017.46 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 290. Zhang, Yuan‐Wei , Song Pei‐Ran, Wang Si‐Cheng, Liu Han, Shi Zhong‐Min, and Su Jia‐Can. 2024. “Diets Intervene Osteoporosis Via Gut‐Bone Axis.” Gut Microbes 16: 2295432. 10.1080/19490976.2023.2295432 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 291. Chen, Yu , Wang Xin, Zhang Chunlei, Liu Zhiyong, Li Chao, and Ren Zhigang. 2022. “Gut Microbiota and Bone Diseases: A Growing Partnership.” Frontiers in Microbiology 13: 877776. 10.3389/fmicb.2022.877776 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 292. Raveschot, Cyril , Coutte François, Frémont Marc, Vaeremans Maxime, Dugersuren Jamyan, Demberel Shirchin, Drider Djamel, et al. 2020. “Probiotic Lactobacillus Strains From Mongolia Improve Calcium Transport and Uptake by Intestinal Cells in Vitro.” Food Research International 133: 109201. 10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 293. Narva, Mirkka , Nevala Riikka, Poussa Tuija, and Korpela Riitta. 2004. “The Effect of Lactobacillus helveticus Fermented Milk on Acute Changes in Calcium Metabolism in Postmenopausal Women.” European Journal of Nutrition 43: 61–68. 10.1007/s00394-004-0441-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 294. Weaver, Connie M. , Martin Berdine R., Nakatsu Cindy H., Armstrong Arthur P., Clavijo Andrea, McCabe Linda D., McCabe George P., et al. 2011. “Galactooligosaccharides Improve Mineral Absorption and Bone Properties in Growing Rats Through Gut Fermentation.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 59: 6501–6510. 10.1021/jf2009777 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 295. Holick, Michael F . 2007. “Vitamin D Deficiency.” New England Journal of Medicine 357: 266–281. 10.1056/NEJMra070553 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 296. Bora, Stephanie A. , Kennett Mary J., Smith Philip B., Patterson Andrew D., and Cantorna Margherita T.. 2018. “The Gut Microbiota Regulates Endocrine Vitamin D Metabolism Through Fibroblast Growth Factor 23.” Frontiers in Immunology 9: 408. 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 297. Jones, Mitchell L. , Martoni Christopher J., and Prakash Satya. 2013. “Oral Supplementation With Probiotic L. reuteri NCIMB 30242 Increases Mean Circulating 25‐Hydroxyvitamin D: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.” The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 98: 2944–2951. 10.1210/jc.2012-4262 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 298. Barbáchano, Antonio , Fernández‐Barral Asunción, Ferrer‐Mayorga Gemma, Costales‐Carrera Alba, Larriba María Jesús, and Muñoz Alberto. 2017. “The Endocrine Vitamin D System in the Gut.” Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology 453: 79–87. 10.1016/j.mce.2016.11.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 299. LeBlanc, Jean Guy , Milani Christian, de Giori Graciela Savoy, Sesma Fernando, van Sinderen Douwe, and Ventura Marco. 2013. “Bacteria as Vitamin Suppliers to Their Host: A Gut Microbiota Perspective.” Current Opinion in Biotechnology 24: 160–168. 10.1016/j.copbio.2012.08.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 300. Stone, Katie L. , Lui Li‐Yung, Christen William G., Troen Aron M., Bauer Douglas C., Kado Deborah, Schambach Christopher, Cummings Steven R., and Manson JoAnn E.. 2017. “Effect of Combination Folic Acid, Vitamin B(6), and Vitamin B(12) Supplementation on Fracture Risk in Women: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.” Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 32: 2331–2338. 10.1002/jbmr.3229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 301. Merl, Geno J. , and Fink James. 2008. “Vitamin K and Thrombosis.” Vitamins and Hormones 78: 265–279. 10.1016/S0083-6729(07)00013-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 302. Atkins, Gerald J. , Welldon Katie J., Wijenayaka Asiri R., Bonewald Lynda F., and Findlay David M.. 2009. “Vitamin K Promotes Mineralization, Osteoblast‐to‐Osteocyte Transition, and an Anticatabolic Phenotype by γ‐Carboxylation‐Dependent and ‐Independent Mechanisms.” American Journal of Physiology‐Cell Physiology 297: C1358–C1367. 10.1152/ajpcell.00216.2009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 303. Dai, Zhaoli , and Koh Woon‐Puay. 2015. “B‐Vitamins and Bone Health—A Review of the Current Evidence.” Nutrients 7: 3322–3346. 10.3390/nu7053322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 304. Zhang, Yuan‐Wei , Wu Yan, Liu Xiang‐Fei, Chen Xiao, and Su Jia‐Can. 2024. “Targeting the Gut Microbiota‐Related Metabolites for Osteoporosis: The Inextricable Connection of Gut‐Bone Axis.” Ageing Research Reviews 94: 102196. 10.1016/j.arr.2024.102196 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 305. Fusco, William , Lorenzo Manuel Bernabeu, Cintoni Marco, Porcari Serena, Rinninella Emanuele, Kaitsas Francesco, Lener Elena, et al. 2023. “Short‐Chain Fatty‐Acid‐Producing Bacteria: Key Components of the Human Gut Microbiota.” Nutrients 15: 2211. 10.3390/nu15092211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 306. Lucas, Sébastien , Omata Yasunori, Hofmann Jörg, Böttcher Martin, Iljazovic Aida, Sarter Kerstin, Albrecht Olivia, et al. 2018. “Short‐Chain Fatty Acids Regulate Systemic Bone Mass and Protect From Pathological Bone Loss.” Nature Communications 9: 55. 10.1038/s41467-017-02490-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 307. Lin, Xu , Xiao Hong‐Mei, Liu Hui‐Min, Lv Wan‐Qiang, Greenbaum Jonathan, Gong Rui, Zhang Qiang, et al. 2023. “Gut Microbiota Impacts Bone Via Bacteroides vulgatus‐valeric Acid‐Related Pathways.” Nature Communications 14: 6853. 10.1038/s41467-023-42005-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 308. Tofalo, Rosanna , Cocchi Simone, and Suzzi Giovanna. 2019. “Polyamines and Gut Microbiota.” Frontiers in Nutrition 6: 16. 10.3389/fnut.2019.00016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 309. Lee, Mon‐Juan , Chen Yuhsin, Huang Yuan‐Pin, Hsu Yi‐Chiang, Chiang Lan‐Hsin, Chen Tzu‐Yu, and Wang Gwo‐Jaw. 2013. “Exogenous Polyamines Promote Osteogenic Differentiation by Reciprocally Regulating Osteogenic and Adipogenic Gene Expression.” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 114: 2718–2728. 10.1002/jcb.24620 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 310. Yamada, Takanori , Park Gyujin, Node Junichi, Ozaki Kakeru, Hiraiwa Manami, Kitaguchi Yuka, Kaneda Katsuyuki, Hiramoto Shigeru, and Hinoi Eiichi. 2019. “Daily Intake of Polyamine‐Rich Saccharomyces cerevisiae S631 Prevents Osteoclastic Activation and Bone Loss in Ovariectomized Mice.” Food Science and Biotechnology 28: 1241–1245. 10.1007/s10068-019-00561-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 311. Wang, Dan , Cai Jing, Pei Qilin, Yan Zedong, Zhu Feng, Zhao Zhe, Liu Ruobing, et al. 2024. “Gut Microbial Alterations in Arginine Metabolism Determine Bone Mechanical Adaptation.” Cell Metabolism 36: 1252–1268.e8. 10.1016/j.cmet.2024.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 312. Zaiss, Mario M. , Jones Rheinallt M., Schett Georg, and Pacifici Roberto. 2019. “The Gut‐Bone Axis: How Bacterial Metabolites Bridge the Distance.” The Journal of Clinical Investigation 129: 3018–3028. 10.1172/JCI128521 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 313. Liu, Yi , Yang Ruili, Liu Xibao, Zhou Yu, Qu Cunye, Kikuiri Takashi, Wang Songlin, et al. 2014. “Hydrogen Sulfide Maintains Mesenchymal Stem Cell Function and Bone Homeostasis Via Regulation of Ca2+ Channel Sulfhydration.” Cell Stem Cell 15: 66–78. 10.1016/j.stem.2014.03.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 314. Okamoto, Kazuo , Nakashima Tomoki, Shinohara Masahiro, Negishi‐Koga Takako, Komatsu Noriko, Terashima Asuka, Sawa Shinichiro, Nitta Takeshi, and Takayanagi Hiroshi. 2017. “Osteoimmunology: The Conceptual Framework Unifying the Immune and Skeletal Systems.” Physiological Reviews 97: 1295–1349. 10.1152/physrev.00036.2016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 315. Takayanagi, Hiroshi . 2007. “Osteoimmunology: Shared Mechanisms and Crosstalk Between the Immune and Bone Systems.” Nature Reviews Immunology 7: 292–304. 10.1038/nri2062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 316. He, Yinxi , and Chen Yanxia. 2022. “The Potential Mechanism of the Microbiota‐Gut‐Bone Axis in Osteoporosis: A Review.” Osteoporosis international 33: 2495–2506. 10.1007/s00198-022-06557-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 317. Dar, Hamid Y. , Pal Subhashis, Shukla Prashant, Mishra Pradyumna K., Tomar Geetanjali B., Chattopadhyay Naibedya, and Srivastava Rupesh K.. 2018. “ Bacillus clausii Inhibits Bone Loss by Skewing Treg‐Th17 Cell Equilibrium in Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Mice Model.” Nutrition 54: 118–128. 10.1016/j.nut.2018.02.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 318. Alexander, Margaret , Ang Qi Yan, Nayak Renuka R., Bustion Annamarie E., Sandy Moriah, Zhang Bing, Upadhyay Vaibhav, et al. 2022. “Human Gut Bacterial Metabolism Drives Th17 Activation and Colitis.” Cell Host & Microbe 30: 17–30.e9. 10.1016/j.chom.2021.11.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 319. Atarashi, Koji , Tanoue Takeshi, Oshima Kenshiro, Suda Wataru, Nagano Yuji, Nishikawa Hiroyoshi, Fukuda Shinji, et al. 2013. “Treg Induction by a Rationally Selected Mixture of Clostridia Strains From the Human Microbiota.” Nature 500: 232–236. 10.1038/nature12331 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 320. Li, Zhi , Zheng Yongquan, Zhang Meng, Wu Kaiqi, Zhang Long, Yao Yao, and Zheng Caihong. 2024. “Gut Microbiota‐Derived Metabolites Associate With Circulating Immune Cell Subsets in Unexplained Recurrent Spontaneous Abortion.” Heliyon 10: e24571. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24571 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 321. Pace, Fernanda , and Watnick Paula I.. 2021. “The Interplay of Sex Steroids, the Immune Response, and the Intestinal Microbiota.” Trends in Microbiology 29: 849–859. 10.1016/j.tim.2020.11.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 322. Ridlon, Jason M. , and Bajaj Jasmohan S.. 2015. “The Human Gut Sterolbiome: Bile Acid‐Microbiome Endocrine Aspects and Therapeutics.” Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B 5: 99–105. 10.1016/j.apsb.2015.01.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 323. Lu, Lingyun , and Tian Li. 2023. “Postmenopausal Osteoporosis Coexisting With Sarcopenia: The Role and Mechanisms of Estrogen.” The Journal of Endocrinology 259: e230116 [pii]. 10.1530/JOE-23-0116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 324. Li, Jau‐Yi , Chassaing Benoit, Tyagi Abdul Malik, Vaccaro Chiara, Luo Tao, Adams Jonathan, Darby Trevor M., et al. 2016. “Sex Steroid Deficiency‐Associated Bone Loss Is Microbiota Dependent and Prevented by Probiotics.” The Journal of Clinical Investigation 126: 2049–2063. 10.1172/JCI86062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 325. Wein, Marc N. , and Kronenberg Henry M.. 2018. “Regulation of Bone Remodeling by Parathyroid Hormone.” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine 8: a031237. 10.1101/cshperspect.a031237 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 326. Yu, Mingcan , Malik Tyagi Abdul, Li Jau‐Yi, Adams Jonathan, Denning Timothy L., Weitzmann M Neale, Jones Rheinallt M., and Pacifici Roberto. 2020. “PTH Induces Bone Loss Via Microbial‐Dependent Expansion of Intestinal TNF+ T Cells and Th17 Cells.” Nature Communications 11: 468. 10.1038/s41467-019-14148-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 327. Li, Jau‐Yi , Yu Mingcan, Pal Subhashis, Tyagi Abdul Malik, Dar Hamid, Adams Jonathan, Weitzmann M Neale, Jones Rheinallt M., and Pacifici Roberto. 2020. “Parathyroid Hormone‐Dependent Bone Formation Requires Butyrate Production by Intestinal Microbiota.” The Journal of Clinical Investigation 130: 1767–1781. 10.1172/JCI133473 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 328. Molina‐Tijeras, Jose Alberto , Gálvez Julio, and Rodríguez‐Cabezas Maria Elena. 2019. “The Immunomodulatory Properties of Extracellular Vesicles Derived From Probiotics: A Novel Approach for the Management of Gastrointestinal Diseases.” Nutrients 11: 1038. 10.3390/nu11051038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 329. Liu, Jiang‐Hua , Chen Chun‐Yuan, Liu Zheng‐Zhao, Luo Zhong‐Wei, Rao Shan‐Shan, Jin Ling, Wan Teng‐Fei, et al. 2021. “Extracellular Vesicles From Child Gut Microbiota Enter Into Bone to Preserve Bone Mass and Strength.” Advanced Science 8: 2004831. 10.1002/advs.202004831 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 330. Wang, Tingting , Mo Lixia, Ou Jiaxin, Fang Qinghua, Wu Huimei, Wu Yuzhe, and Nandakumar Kutty Selva. 2022. “Proteus Mirabilis Vesicles Induce Mitochondrial Apoptosis by Regulating miR96‐5p/Abca1 to Inhibit Osteoclastogenesis and Bone Loss.” Frontiers in Immunology 13: 833040. 10.3389/fimmu.2022.833040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 331. Collins, Fraser L. , Rios‐Arce Naiomy D., Schepper Jonathan D., Parameswaran Narayanan, and McCabe Laura R.. 2017. “The Potential of Probiotics as a Therapy for Osteoporosis.” Microbiology Spectrum 5: 10.1128/microbiolspec.BAD-0015-2016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 332. Lee, C. S. , Kim J.‐Y., Kim B. K., Lee I. O., Park N. H., and Kim S. H.. 2021. “ Lactobacillus‐Fermented Milk Products Attenuate Bone Loss in an Experimental Rat Model of Ovariectomy‐Induced Post‐Menopausal Primary Osteoporosis.” Journal of Applied Microbiology 130: 2041–2062. 10.1111/jam.14852 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 333. Wallimann, Alexandra , Hildebrand Maria, Groeger David, Stanic Barbara, Akdis Cezmi A., Zeiter Stephan, Richards R Geoff, et al. 2021. “An Exopolysaccharide Produced by Bifidobacterium longum 35624® Inhibits Osteoclast Formation via a TLR2‐Dependent Mechanism.” Calcified Tissue International 108: 654–666. 10.1007/s00223-020-00790-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 334. Roberts, Joseph L. , Liu Guanglu, Darby Trevor M., Fernandes Lorenzo M., Diaz‐Hernandez Martha E., Jones Rheinallt M., and Drissi Hicham. 2020. “ Bifidobacterium adolescentis Supplementation Attenuates Fracture‐Induced Systemic Sequelae.” Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy 132: 110831. 10.1016/j.biopha.2020.110831 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 335. Slevin, Mary M. , Allsopp Philip J., Magee Pamela J., Bonham Maxine P., Naughton Violetta R., Strain J. J., Duffy Maresa E., Wallace Julie M., and Mc Sorley Emeir M.. 2014. “Supplementation With Calcium and Short‐Chain Fructo‐Oligosaccharides Affects Markers of Bone Turnover but Not Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Women.” The Journal of Nutrition 144: 297–304. 10.3945/jn.113.188144 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 336. Nilsson, A. G. , Sundh D., Bäckhed F., and Lorentzon M.. 2018. “ Lactobacillus reuteri Reduces Bone Loss in Older Women With Low Bone Mineral Density: A Randomized, Placebo‐Controlled, Double‐Blind, Clinical Trial.” Journal of Internal Medicine 284: 307–317. 10.1111/joim.12805 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 337. Lei, M. , Hua L.‐M., Wang, and Wang D.‐W.. 2016. “The Effect of Probiotic Treatment on Elderly Patients With Distal Radius Fracture: A Prospective Double‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled Randomised Clinical Trial.” Beneficial Microbes 7: 631–638. 10.3920/BM2016.0067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 338. Jafarnejad, Sadegh , Djafarian Kurosh, Fazeli Mohammad Reza, Yekaninejad Mir Saeed, Rostamian Abdolrahman, and Keshavarz Seyed Ali. 2017. “Effects of a Multispecies Probiotic Supplement on Bone Health in Osteopenic Postmenopausal Women: A Randomized, Double‐Blind, Controlled Trial.” Journal of the American College of Nutrition 36: 497–506. 10.1080/07315724.2017.1318724 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 339. Schepper, Jonathan D. , Irwin Regina, Kang Jun, Dagenais Kevin, Lemon Tristan, Shinouskis Ally, Parameswaran Narayanan, and McCabe Laura R.. 2017. “Probiotics in Gut‐Bone Signaling.” Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 1033: 225–247. 10.1007/978-3-319-66653-2_11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 340. Montazeri‐Najafabady, Nima , Ghasemi Younes, Dabbaghmanesh Mohammad Hossein, Ashoori Yousef, Talezadeh Pedram, Koohpeyma Farhad, Abootalebi Seyedeh Narjes, and Gholami Ahmad. 2021. “Exploring the Bone Sparing Effects of Postbiotics in the Post‐Menopausal Rat Model.” BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies 21: 155. 10.1186/s12906-021-03327-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 341. Zhou, Yun , Sheng Yun Jie, Li Cheng Yan, Zou Li, Tong Chao Ying, Zhang Yang, Cao Gang, and Shou Dan. 2023. “Beneficial Effect and Mechanism of Natural Resourced Polysaccharides on Regulating Bone Metabolism Through Intestinal Flora: A Review.” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 253: 127428. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.127428 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 342. Arda, Oktay , Göksügür Nadir, and Tüzün Yalçın. 2014. “Basic Histological Structure and Functions of Facial Skin.” Clinics In Dermatology 32: 3–13. 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2013.05.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 343. Fuchs, Elaine . 2007. “Scratching the Surface of Skin Development.” Nature 445: 834–842. 10.1038/nature05659 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 344. Gravitz, Lauren . 2018. “Skin.” Nature 563: S83. 10.1038/d41586-018-07428-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 345. Severn, Morgan M. , and Horswill Alexander R.. 2023. “ Staphylococcus epidermidis and Its Dual Lifestyle in Skin Health and Infection.” Nature Reviews Microbiology 21: 97–111. 10.1038/s41579-022-00780-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 346. Belkaid, Yasmine , and Segre Julia A.. 2014. “Dialogue Between Skin Microbiota and Immunity.” Science 346: 954–959. 10.1126/science.1260144 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 347. Wong, Richard , Geyer Stefan, Weninger Wolfgang, Guimberteau Jean‐Claude, and Wong Jason K.. 2016. “The Dynamic Anatomy and Patterning of Skin.” Experimental Dermatology 25: 92–98. 10.1111/exd.12832 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 348. Eyerich, Stefanie , Eyerich Kilian, Traidl‐Hoffmann Claudia, and Biedermann Tilo. 2018. “Cutaneous Barriers and Skin Immunity: Differentiating a Connected Network.” Trends in Immunology 39: 315–327. 10.1016/j.it.2018.02.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 349. Denda, Mitsuhiro . 2002. “New Strategies to Improve Skin Barrier Homeostasis.” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 54(Suppl 1): S123–S130. 10.1016/S0169-409X(02)00115-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 350. Capone, Kimberly A. , Dowd Scot E., Stamatas Georgios N., and Nikolovski Janeta. 2011. “Diversity of the Human Skin Microbiome Early in Life.” Journal of Investigative Dermatology 131: 2026–2032. 10.1038/jid.2011.168 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 351. Dwyer, Laura R. , and Scharschmidt Tiffany C.. 2022. “Early Life Host‐Microbe Interactions in Skin.” Cell Host & Microbe 30: 684–695. 10.1016/j.chom.2022.02.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 352. Lax, Simon , Smith Daniel P., Hampton‐Marcell Jarrad, Owens Sarah M., Handley Kim M., Scott Nicole M., Gibbons Sean M., et al. 2014. “Longitudinal Analysis of Microbial Interaction Between Humans and the Indoor Environment.” Science 345: 1048–1052. 10.1126/science.1254529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 353. Howard, Brian , Bascom Charles C., Hu Ping, Binder Robert L., Fadayel Gina, Huggins Tom G., Jarrold Bradley B., et al. 2022. “Aging‐Associated Changes in the Adult Human Skin Microbiome and the Host Factors That Affect Skin Microbiome Composition.” Journal of Investigative Dermatology 142: 1934–1946.e21. 10.1016/j.jid.2021.11.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 354. Claesen, Jan , Spagnolo Jennifer B., Ramos Stephany Flores, Kurita Kenji L., Byrd Allyson L., Aksenov Alexander A., Melnik Alexey V., et al. 2020. “A Cutibacterium Acnes Antibiotic Modulates Human Skin Microbiota Composition in Hair Follicles.” Science Translational Medicine 12: eaay5445. 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay5445 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 355. Bay, Lene , Barnes Christopher James, Fritz Blaine Gabriel, Thorsen Jonathan, Restrup Marlene Elise Møller, Rasmussen Linett, Sørensen Johan Kløvgaard, et al. 2020. “Universal Dermal Microbiome in Human Skin.” Mbio 11: e02945–19. 10.1128/mBio.02945-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 356. Grice, Elizabeth A. , Kong Heidi H., Conlan Sean, Deming Clayton B., Davis Joie, Young Alice C., Bouffard Gerard G., et al. 2009. “Topographical and Temporal Diversity of the Human Skin Microbiome.” Science 324: 1190–1192. 10.1126/science.1171700 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 357. Tan, Kahbing Jasmine , Nakamizo Satoshi, Lee‐Okada Hyeon‐Cheol, Sato Reiko, Chow Zachary, Nakajima Saeko, Common John E. A., et al. 2022. “A Western Diet Alters Skin Ceramides and Compromises the Skin Barrier in Ears.” Journal of Investigative Dermatology 142: 2020–2023.e2. 10.1016/j.jid.2021.12.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 358. Michaëlsson, Gerd . 1981. “Diet and Acne.” Nutrition Reviews 39: 104–106. 10.1111/j.1753-4887.1981.tb06740.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 359. Mahmud, Md Rayhan , Akter Sharmin, Tamanna Sanjida Khanam, Mazumder Lincon, Esti Israt Zahan, Banerjee Sanchita, Akter Sumona, et al. 2022. “Impact of Gut Microbiome on Skin Health: Gut‐Skin Axis Observed Through the Lenses of Therapeutics and Skin Diseases.” Gut Microbes 14: 2096995. 10.1080/19490976.2022.2096995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 360. The Human Microbiome Project Consortium . 2012. “Structure, Function and Diversity of the Healthy Human Microbiome.” Nature 486: 207–214. 10.1038/nature11234 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 361. Mariman, R. , Reefman E., Tielen F., Persoon‐Deen C., van de Mark K., Worms N., Koning F., and Nagelkerken L.. 2016. “ Lactobacillus plantarum NCIMB8826 Ameliorates Inflammation of Colon and Skin in Human APOC1 Transgenic Mice.” Beneficial Microbes 7: 215–226. 10.3920/BM2015.0074 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 362. Schmid, Bettina , Künstner Axel, Fähnrich Anke, Busch Hauke, Glatz Martin, and Bosshard Philipp P.. 2022. “Longitudinal Characterization of the Fungal Skin Microbiota in Healthy Subjects Over a Period of 1 Year.” Journal of Investigative Dermatology 142: 2766–2772.e8. 10.1016/j.jid.2022.03.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 363. Schwarz, Agatha , Bruhs Anika, and Schwarz Thomas. 2017. “The Short‐Chain Fatty Acid Sodium Butyrate Functions as a Regulator of the Skin Immune System.” Journal of Investigative Dermatology 137: 855–864. 10.1016/j.jid.2016.11.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 364. Bowe, W. , Patel N. B., and Logan A. C.. 2014. “Acne Vulgaris, Probiotics and the Gut‐Brain‐Skin Axis: From Anecdote to Translational Medicine.” Beneficial Microbes 5: 185–199. 10.3920/BM2012.0060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 365. Dimitriu, Pedro A. , Iker Brandon, Malik Kausar, Leung Hilary, Mohn W. W., and Hillebrand Greg G.. 2019. “New Insights Into the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors That Shape the Human Skin Microbiome.” Mbio 10: e00839‐19. 10.1128/mBio.00839-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 366. Ogawa, C. , Inoue R., Yonejima Y., Hisa K., Yamamoto Y., and Suzuki T.. 2021. “Supplemental Leuconostoc Mesenteroides Strain NTM048 Attenuates Imiquimod‐Induced Psoriasis in Mice.” Journal of Applied Microbiology 131: 3043–3055. 10.1111/jam.15161 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 367. Salem, Iman , Ramser Amy, Isham Nancy, and Ghannoum Mahmoud A.. 2018. “The Gut Microbiome as a Major Regulator of the Gut‐Skin Axis.” Frontiers in Microbiology 9: 1459. 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01459 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 368. Shah, Kejal R. , Boland C Richard, Patel Mahir, Thrash Breck, and Menter Alan. 2013. “Cutaneous Manifestations of Gastrointestinal Disease.” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 68: 189.e1−21. quiz 210 10.1016/j.jaad.2012.10.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 369. Thrash, Breck , Patel Mahir, Shah Kejal R., Boland C Richard, and Menter Alan. 2013. “Cutaneous Manifestations of Gastrointestinal Disease.” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 68: 211.e1−33. quiz 244−6 10.1016/j.jaad.2012.10.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 370. Kim, Ha‐Na , Han Kyungdo, Park Yong‐Gyu, and Lee Ji Hyun. 2019. “Metabolic Syndrome Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Psoriasis: A Nationwide Population‐Based Study.” Metabolism 99: 19–24. 10.1016/j.metabol.2019.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 371. Alinaghi, Farzad , Tekin Hasan Göcker, Burisch Johan, Wu Jashin J., Thyssen Jacob P., and Egeberg Alexander. 2020. “Global Prevalence and Bidirectional Association Between Psoriasis and Inflammatory Bowel Disease—A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Journal of Crohn's & Colitis 14: 351–360. 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 372. Armstrong, April W. , Harskamp Caitlin T., and Armstrong Ehrin J.. 2013. “Psoriasis and Metabolic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Observational Studies.” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 68: 654–662. 10.1016/j.jaad.2012.08.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 373. McCarthy, Siobhán , Barrett Maurice, Kirthi Shivashini, Pellanda Paola, Vlckova Klara, Tobin Anne‐Marie, Murphy Michelle, Shanahan Fergus, and O'Toole Paul W.. 2022. “Altered Skin and Gut Microbiome in Hidradenitis Suppurativa.” Journal of Investigative Dermatology 142: 459–468.e15. 10.1016/j.jid.2021.05.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 374. Bosman, Else S. , Albert Arianne Y., Lui Harvey, Dutz Jan P., and Vallance Bruce A.. 2019. “Skin Exposure to Narrow Band Ultraviolet (UVB) Light Modulates the Human Intestinal Microbiome.” Frontiers in Microbiology 10: 2410. 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02410 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 375. Conteville, Liliane Costa , and Vicente Ana Carolina P.. 2020. “Skin Exposure to Sunlight: A Factor Modulating the Human Gut Microbiome Composition.” Gut Microbes 11: 1135–1138. 10.1080/19490976.2020.1745044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 376. Tillack, Cornelia , Ehmann Laura Maximiliane, Friedrich Matthias, Laubender Rüdiger P, Papay Pavol, Vogelsang Harald, Stallhofer Johannes, et al. 2014. “Anti‐TNF Antibody‐Induced Psoriasiform Skin Lesions in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Are Characterised by Interferon‐Γ‐Expressing Th1 Cells and IL‐17a/IL‐22‐Expressing th17 Cells and Respond to Anti‐IL‐12/IL‐23 Antibody Treatment.” Gut 63: 567–577. 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302853 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 377. Liu, Xiaochun , Xu Jing, Wang Zhifeng, Xu Xiaoqiang, Wen He, Su Huichun, Han Yue, et al. 2023. “Differential Changes in the Gut Microbiota Between Extrinsic and Intrinsic Atopic Dermatitis.” Journal of Autoimmunity 141: 103096. 10.1016/j.jaut.2023.103096 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 378. Kim, Seok‐Jo , Bale Swarna, Verma Priyanka, Wan Qianqian, Ma Feiyang, Gudjonsson Johann E., Hazen Stanley L., et al. 2022. “Gut Microbe‐Derived Metabolite Trimethylamine N‐Oxide Activates PERK to Drive Fibrogenic Mesenchymal Differentiation.” Iscience 25: 104669. 10.1016/j.isci.2022.104669 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 379. Shi, Zhenrui , Wu Xuesong, Santos Rocha Clarissa, Rolston Matthew, Garcia‐Melchor Emma, Huynh Mindy, Nguyen Mimi, et al. 2021. “Short‐Term Western Diet Intake Promotes IL‐23‒Mediated Skin and Joint Inflammation Accompanied by Changes to the Gut Microbiota in Mice.” Journal of Investigative Dermatology 141: 1780–1791. 10.1016/j.jid.2020.11.032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 380. Weersma, Rinse K. , Zhernakova Alexandra, and Fu Jingyuan. 2020. “Interaction Between Drugs and the Gut Microbiome.” Gut 69: 1510–1519. 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-320204 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 381. Zhernakova, Alexandra , Kurilshikov Alexander, Bonder Marc Jan, Tigchelaar Ettje F., Schirmer Melanie, Vatanen Tommi, Mujagic Zlatan, et al. 2016. “Population‐Based Metagenomics Analysis Reveals Markers for Gut Microbiome Composition and Diversity.” Science 352: 565–569. 10.1126/science.aad3369 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 382. Moitinho‐Silva, L. , Boraczynski N., Emmert H., Baurecht H., Szymczak S., Schulz H., Haller D., et al. 2021. “Host Traits, Lifestyle and Environment Are Associated With Human Skin Bacteria.” British Journal of Dermatology 185: 573–584. 10.1111/bjd.20072 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 383. Rosa, Daiane Figueiredo , Sarandy Mariáurea Matias, Novaes Rômulo Dias, Freitas Mariella Bontempo, do Carmo Gouveia Pelúzio Maria, and Gonçalves Reggiani Vilela. 2018. “High‐Fat Diet and Alcohol Intake Promotes Inflammation and Impairs Skin Wound Healing in Wistar Rats.” Mediators of Inflammation 2018: 4658583. 10.1155/2018/4658583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 384. Fang, Zhifeng , Pan Tong, Li Lingzhi, Wang Hongchao, Zhu Jinlin, Zhang Hao, Zhao Jianxin, Chen Wei, and Lu Wenwei. 2022. “ Bifidobacterium longum Mediated Tryptophan Metabolism to Improve Atopic Dermatitis via the Gut‐Skin Axis.” Gut Microbes 14: 2044723. 10.1080/19490976.2022.2044723 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 385. Gao, Ting , Li Yixuan, Wang Xiaoyu, Tao Ran, and Ren Fazheng. 2023. “ Bifidobacterium longum 68S Mediated Gut‐Skin Axis Homeostasis Improved Skin Barrier Damage in Aging Mice.” Phytomedicine 120: 155051. 10.1016/j.phymed.2023.155051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 386. Lunjani, Nonhlanhla , Hlela Carol, and O'Mahony Liam. 2019. “Microbiome and Skin Biology.” Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology 19: 328–333. 10.1097/ACI.0000000000000542 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 387. Sohn, Emily . 2018. “Skin Microbiota's Community Effort.” Nature 563: S91–S93. 10.1038/d41586-018-07432-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 388. Prescott, Susan L. , Larcombe Danica‐Lea, Logan Alan C., West Christina, Burks Wesley, Caraballo Luis, Levin Michael, et al. 2017. “The Skin Microbiome: Impact of Modern Environments on Skin Ecology, Barrier Integrity, and Systemic Immune Programming.” World Allergy Organization Journal 10: 29. 10.1186/s40413-017-0160-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 389. Uberoi, Aayushi , Kenney CaseyBartow‐Mc, Zheng Qi, Flowers Laurice, Campbell Amy, Knight Simon A. B., Chan Neal, et al. 2021. “Commensal Microbiota Regulates Skin Barrier Function and Repair Via Signaling Through the Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor.” Cell Host & Microbe 29: 1235–48.e8. 10.1016/j.chom.2021.05.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 390. Wang, Gaofeng , Sweren Evan, Andrews William, Li Yue, Chen Junjun, Xue Yingchao, Wier Eric, et al. 2023. “Commensal Microbiome Promotes Hair Follicle Regeneration by Inducing Keratinocyte HIF‐1α Signaling and Glutamine Metabolism.” Science Advances 9: eabo7555. 10.1126/sciadv.abo7555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 391. Wang, Gaofeng , Sweren Evan, Liu Haiyun, Wier Eric, Alphonse Martin P., Chen Ruosi, Islam Nasif, et al. 2021. “Bacteria Induce Skin Regeneration Via IL‐1β Signaling.” Cell Host & Microbe 29: 777–91.e6. 10.1016/j.chom.2021.03.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 392. Polkowska‐Pruszyńska, B. , Gerkowicz A., and Krasowska D.. 2020. “The Gut Microbiome Alterations in Allergic and Inflammatory Skin Diseases—an Update.” Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 34: 455–464. 10.1111/jdv.15951 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 393. Sikora, Mariusz , Stec Albert, Chrabaszcz Magdalena, Knot Aleksandra, Waskiel‐Burnat Anna, Rakowska Adriana, Olszewska Malgorzata, and Rudnicka Lidia. 2020. “Gut Microbiome in Psoriasis: An Updated Review.” Pathogens 9: 463. 10.3390/pathogens9060463 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 394. Chen, Jie , Domingue Jada C., and Sears Cynthia L.. 2017. “Microbiota Dysbiosis in Select Human Cancers: Evidence of Association and Causality.” Seminars in Immunology 32: 25–34. 10.1016/j.smim.2017.08.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 395. Marrs, Tom , Jo Jay‐Hyun, Perkin Michael R., Rivett Damian W., Witney Adam A., Bruce Kenneth D., Logan Kirsty, et al. 2021. “Gut Microbiota Development During Infancy: Impact of Introducing Allergenic Foods.” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 147: 613–621.e9. 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.09.042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 396. Furue, Masutaka , Hashimoto‐Hachiya Akiko, and Tsuji Gaku. 2019. “Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor in Atopic Dermatitis and Psoriasis.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 20: 5424. 10.3390/ijms20215424 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 397. Devereux, Graham , and Seaton Anthony. 2005. “Diet as a Risk Factor for Atopy and Asthma.” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 115: 1109–1117. quiz 1118 10.1016/j.jaci.2004.12.1139 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 398. Nylund, L. , Nermes M., Isolauri E., Salminen S., de Vos W. M., and Satokari R.. 2015. “Severity of Atopic Disease Inversely Correlates With Intestinal Microbiota Diversity and Butyrate‐Producing Bacteria.” Allergy 70: 241–244. 10.1111/all.12549 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 399. Kim, Ha Jung , Lee Seung Hwa, and Hong Soo Jong. 2020. “Antibiotics‐Induced Dysbiosis of Intestinal Microbiota Aggravates Atopic Dermatitis in Mice by Altered Short‐Chain Fatty Acids.” Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Research 12: 137–148. 10.4168/aair.2020.12.1.137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 400. Kong, Weng Sheng , Tsuyama Naohiro, Inoue Hiroko, Guo Yun, Mokuda Sho, Nobukiyo Asako, Nakatani Nobuhiro, et al. 2021. “Long‐Chain Saturated Fatty Acids in Breast Milk Are Associated With the Pathogenesis of Atopic Dermatitis Via Induction of Inflammatory ILC3s.” Scientific Reports 11: 13109. 10.1038/s41598-021-92282-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 401. Trompette, Aurélien , Pernot Julie, Perdijk Olaf, Alqahtani Rayed Ali A., Domingo Jaime Santo, Camacho‐Muñoz Dolores, Wong Nicholas C., et al. 2022. “Gut‐Derived Short‐Chain Fatty Acids Modulate Skin Barrier Integrity by Promoting Keratinocyte Metabolism and Differentiation.” Mucosal Immunology 15: 908–926. 10.1038/s41385-022-00524-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 402. Boehncke, Wolf‐Henning , and Schön Michael P.. 2015. “Psoriasis.” The Lancet 386: 983–994. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61909-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 403. Codoñer, Francisco M. , Ramírez‐Bosca Ana, Climent Eric, Carrión‐Gutierrez Miguel, Guerrero Mariano, Pérez‐Orquín Jose Manuel, Horga de la Parte José, et al. 2018. “Gut Microbial Composition in Patients With Psoriasis.” Scientific Reports 8: 3812. 10.1038/s41598-018-22125-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 404. Sitkin, Stanislav , and Pokrotnieks Juris. 2019. “Clinical Potential of Anti‐Inflammatory Effects of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii and Butyrate in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.” Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 25: e40–e41. 10.1093/ibd/izy258 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 405. Tan, LiRong , Zhao Shuang, Zhu Wu, Wu Lisha, Li Jie, Shen MinXue, Lei Li, Chen Xiang, and Peng Cong. 2018. “The Akkermansia muciniphila Is a Gut Microbiota Signature in Psoriasis.” Experimental Dermatology 27: 144–149. 10.1111/exd.13463 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 406. Lu, Wenwei , Deng Yadan, Fang Zhifeng, Zhai Qixiao, Cui Shumao, Zhao Jianxin, Chen Wei, and Zhang Hao. 2021. “Potential Role of Probiotics in Ameliorating Psoriasis by Modulating Gut Microbiota in Imiquimod‐Induced Psoriasis‐Like Mice.” Nutrients 13: 2010. 10.3390/nu13062010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 407. Kiyohara, Hiroki , Sujino Tomohisa, Teratani Toshiaki, Miyamoto Kentaro, Arai Mari Mochizuki, Nomura Ena, Harada Yosuke, et al. 2019. “Toll‐Like Receptor 7 Agonist‐Induced Dermatitis Causes Severe Dextran Sulfate Sodium Colitis by Altering the Gut Microbiome and Immune Cells.” Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology 7: 135–156. 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2018.09.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 408. Deng, Y. , Wang H., Zhou J., Mou Y., Wang G., and Xiong X.. 2018. “Patients With Acne Vulgaris Have a Distinct Gut Microbiota in Comparison With Healthy Controls.” Acta Dermato Venereologica 98: 783–790. 10.2340/00015555-2968 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 409. Grossi, E. , Cazzaniga S., Crotti S., Naldi L., Di Landro A., Ingordo V., Cusano F., et al. 2016. “The Constellation of Dietary Factors in Adolescent Acne: A Semantic Connectivity Map Approach.” Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 30: 96–100. 10.1111/jdv.12878 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 410. Melnik, Bodo . 2015. “Linking Diet to Acne Metabolomics, Inflammation, and Comedogenesis: An Update.” Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology 8: 371–388. 10.2147/CCID.S69135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 411. van Zuuren, Esther J . 2017. “Rosacea.” New England Journal of Medicine 377: 1754–1764. 10.1056/NEJMcp1506630 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 412. Woo, Yu Ri , Han Yu Jin, Kim Hei Sung, Cho Sang Hyun, and Lee Jeong Deuk. 2020. “Updates on the Risk of Neuropsychiatric and Gastrointestinal Comorbidities in Rosacea and Its Possible Relationship With the Gut‐Brain‐Skin Axis.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 21: 8427. 10.3390/ijms21228427 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 413. Chen, Yi‐Ju , Lee Wei‐Hsiang, Ho Hsiu J., Tseng Ching‐Hung, and Wu Chun‐Ying. 2021. “An Altered Fecal Microbial Profiling in Rosacea Patients Compared to Matched Controls.” Journal of the Formosan Medical Association 120: 256–264. 10.1016/j.jfma.2020.04.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 414. Weiss, Emma , and Katta Rajani. 2017. “Diet and Rosacea: the Role of Dietary Change in the Management of Rosacea.” Dermatology Practical & Conceptual 7: 31–37. 10.5826/dpc.0704a08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 415. Sakuma, Thais H. , and Maibach Howard I.. 2012. “Oily Skin: an Overview.” Skin Pharmacology and Physiology 25: 227–235. 10.1159/000338978 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 416. Reygagne, P. , Bastien P., Couavoux M. P., Philippe D., Renouf M., Castiel‐Higounenc I., and Gueniche A.. 2017. “The Positive Benefit of Lactobacillus Paracasei NCC2461 ST11 in Healthy Volunteers With Moderate to Severe Dandruff.” Beneficial Microbes 8: 671–680. 10.3920/BM2016.0144 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 417. Chen, Wei‐Ti , and Chi Ching‐Chi. 2019. “Association of Hidradenitis Suppurativa With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” JAMA Dermatology 155: 1022–1027. 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0891 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 418. Spencer, Christine N. , McQuade Jennifer L., Gopalakrishnan Vancheswaran, McCulloch John A., Vetizou Marie, Cogdill Alexandria P., Khan Md A Wadud, et al. 2021. “Dietary Fiber and Probiotics Influence the Gut Microbiome and Melanoma Immunotherapy Response.” Science 374: 1632–1640. 10.1126/science.aaz7015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 419. Papadimitriou, Nikos , Markozannes Georgios, Kanellopoulou Afroditi, Critselis Elena, Alhardan Sumayah, Karafousia Vaia, Kasimis John C., et al. 2021. “An Umbrella Review of the Evidence Associating Diet and Cancer Risk at 11 Anatomical Sites.” Nature Communications 12: 4579. 10.1038/s41467-021-24861-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 420. Roudsari, M Rahmati , Karimi R., Sohrabvandi S., and Mortazavian A. M.. 2015. “Health Effects of Probiotics on the Skin.” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 55: 1219–1240. 10.1080/10408398.2012.680078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 421. Michalak, Monika , Pierzak Monika, Kręcisz Beata, and Suliga Edyta. 2021. “Bioactive Compounds for Skin Health: A Review.” Nutrients 13: 203. 10.3390/nu13010203 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 422. Mashiah, Jacob , Karady Tal, Fliss‐Isakov Naomi, Sprecher Eli, Slodownik Dan, Artzi Ofir, Samuelov Liat, et al. 2022. “Clinical Efficacy of Fecal Microbial Transplantation Treatment in Adults With Moderate‐to‐Severe Atopic Dermatitis.” Immunity, Inflammation and Disease 10: e570. 10.1002/iid3.570 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 423. Levkovich, Tatiana , Poutahidis Theofilos, Smillie Christopher, Varian Bernard J., Ibrahim Yassin M., Lakritz Jessica R., Alm Eric J., and Erdman Susan E.. 2013. “Probiotic Bacteria Induce a ‘Glow of Health’.” PloS One 8: e53867. 10.1371/journal.pone.0053867 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 424. Rahman Mazumder, Md Anisur , and Hongsprabhas Parichat. 2016. “Genistein as Antioxidant and Antibrowning Agents in in Vivo and in Vitro: A Review.” Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy 82: 379–392. 10.1016/j.biopha.2016.05.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 425. Yu, Linda , Rios Eddy, Castro Lysandra, Liu Jingli, Yan Yitang, and Dixon Darlene. 2021. “Genistein: Dual Role in Women's Health.” Nutrients 13: 3048. 10.3390/nu13093048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 426. Luca, Simon Vlad , Macovei Irina, Bujor Alexandra, Miron Anca, Skalicka‐Woźniak Krystyna, Aprotosoaie Ana Clara, and Trifan Adriana. 2020. “Bioactivity of Dietary Polyphenols: the Role of Metabolites.” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 60: 626–659. 10.1080/10408398.2018.1546669 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 427. Adlercreutz, H. , Pulkkinen M. O., Hämäläinen E. K., and Korpela J. T.. 1984. “Studies on the Role of Intestinal Bacteria in Metabolism of Synthetic and Natural Steroid Hormones.” Journal of Steroid Biochemistry 20: 217–229. 10.1016/0022-4731(84)90208-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 428. Franasiak, Jason M. , and Richard T. Scott, Jr. . 2015. “Introduction.” Fertility and Sterility 104: 1341–1343. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.10.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 429. Cheng, Mingyue , Zhao Yan, Cui Yazhou, Zhong Chaofang, Zha Yuguo, Li Shufeng, Cao Guangxiang, et al. 2022. “Stage‐Specific Roles of Microbial Dysbiosis and Metabolic Disorders in Rheumatoid Arthritis.” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 81: 1669–1677. 10.1136/ard-2022-222871 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 430. Tang, W H Wilson , and Hazen Stanley L.. 2024. “Unraveling the Complex Relationship Between Gut Microbiome and Cardiovascular Diseases.” Circulation 149: 1543–1545. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067547 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 431. Baker, James M. , Al‐Nakkash Layla, and Herbst‐Kralovetz Melissa M.. 2017. “Estrogen‐Gut Microbiome Axis: Physiological and Clinical Implications.” Maturitas 103: 45–53. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2017.06.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 432. Liu, Rui , Zhang Chenhong, Shi Yu, Zhang Feng, Li Linxia, Wang Xuejiao, Ling Yunxia, et al. 2017. “Dysbiosis of Gut Microbiota Associated With Clinical Parameters in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.” Frontiers in Microbiology 8: 324. 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00324 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 433. McCurry, Megan D. , D'Agostino Gabriel D., Walsh Jasmine T., Bisanz Jordan E., Zalosnik Ines, Dong Xueyang, Morris David J., et al. 2024. “Gut Bacteria Convert Glucocorticoids Into Progestins in the Presence of Hydrogen Gas.” Cell 187: 2952–2968.e13. 10.1016/j.cell.2024.05.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 434. Escobar‐Morreale, Héctor F . 2018. “Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Definition, Aetiology, Diagnosis and Treatment.” Nature Reviews Endocrinology 14: 270–284. 10.1038/nrendo.2018.24 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 435. Stener‐Victorin, Elisabet , and Deng Qiaolin. 2021. “Epigenetic Inheritance of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome–Challenges and Opportunities for Treatment.” Nature Reviews Endocrinology 17: 521–533. 10.1038/s41574-021-00517-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 436. Jayasena, Channa N. , and Franks Stephen. 2014. “The Management of Patients With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.” Nature Reviews Endocrinology 10: 624–636. 10.1038/nrendo.2014.102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 437. Lindheim, Lisa , Bashir Mina, Münzker Julia, Trummer Christian, Zachhuber Verena, Leber Bettina, Horvath Angela, et al. 2017. “Alterations in Gut Microbiome Composition and Barrier Function Are Associated With Reproductive and Metabolic Defects in Women With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS): A Pilot Study.” PloS One 12: e0168390. 10.1371/journal.pone.0168390 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 438. Qi, Xinyu , Yun Chuyu, Sun Lulu, Xia Jialin, Wu Qing, Wang Ying, Wang Lina, et al. 2019. “Gut Microbiota‐Bile Acid‐Interleukin‐22 Axis Orchestrates Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.” Nature Medicine 25: 1225–1233. 10.1038/s41591-019-0509-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 439. Li, Pan , Shuai Ping, Shen Sj, Zheng Huimin, Sun Ping, Zhang Renfang, Lan Shanwei, et al. 2023. “Perturbations in Gut Microbiota Composition in Patients With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” BMC Medicine 21: 302. 10.1186/s12916-023-02975-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 440. Guo, Yanjie , Qi Yane, Yang Xuefei, Zhao Lihui, Wen Shu, Liu Yinhui, and Tang Li. 2016. “Association Between Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and Gut Microbiota.” PloS One 11: e0153196. 10.1371/journal.pone.0153196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 441. Yun, Chuyu , Yan Sen, Liao Baoying, Ding Yong, Qi Xinyu, Zhao Min, Wang Kai, et al. 2024. “The Microbial Metabolite Agmatine Acts as an FXR Agonist to Promote Polycystic Ovary Syndrome in Female Mice.” Nature Metabolism 6: 947–962. 10.1038/s42255-024-01041-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 442. Broekmans, F. J. , Soules M. R., and Fauser B. C.. 2009. “Ovarian Aging: Mechanisms and Clinical Consequences.” Endocrine Reviews 30: 465–493. 10.1210/er.2009-0006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 443. Webber, L. , Davies M., Anderson R., Bartlett J., Braat D., Cartwright B., Cifkova R., et al. 2016. “ESHRE Guideline: Management of Women With Premature Ovarian Insufficiency.” Human Reproduction 31: 926–937. 10.1093/humrep/dew027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 444. Huang, Feiling , Cao Ying, Liang Jinghui, Tang Ruiyi, Wu Si, Zhang Peng, and Chen Rong. 2024. “The Influence of the Gut Microbiome on Ovarian Aging.” Gut Microbes 16: 2295394. 10.1080/19490976.2023.2295394 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 445. Panay, N. , Anderson R. A., Nappi R. E., Vincent A. J., Vujovic S., Webber L., and Wolfman W.. 2020. “Premature Ovarian Insufficiency: An International Menopause Society White Paper.” Climacteric 23: 426–446. 10.1080/13697137.2020.1804547 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 446. Wu, Jiaman , Zhuo Yuanyuan, Liu Yulei, Chen Yan, Ning Yan, and Yao Jilong. 2021. “Association Between Premature Ovarian Insufficiency and Gut Microbiota.” BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 21: 418. 10.1186/s12884-021-03855-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 447. Tan, Jian Kai , Macia Laurence, and Mackay Charles R.. 2023. “Dietary Fiber and SCFAs in the Regulation of Mucosal Immunity.” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 151: 361–370. 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 448. Jiang, Lingling , Fei Haiyi, Tong Jinfei, Zhou Jiena, Zhu Jiajuan, Jin Xiaoying, Shi Zhan, et al. 2021. “Hormone Replacement Therapy Reverses Gut Microbiome and Serum Metabolome Alterations in Premature Ovarian Insufficiency.” Frontiers in Endocrinology 12: 794496. 10.3389/fendo.2021.794496 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 449. Chapron, Charles , Marcellin Louis, Borghese Bruno, and Santulli Pietro. 2019. “Rethinking Mechanisms, Diagnosis and Management of Endometriosis.” Nature Reviews Endocrinology 15: 666–682. 10.1038/s41574-019-0245-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 450. Marquardt, Ryan M. , Tran Dinh Nam, Lessey Bruce A., Rahman Md Saidur, and Jeong Jae‐Wook. 2023. “Epigenetic Dysregulation in Endometriosis: Implications for Pathophysiology and Therapeutics.” Endocrine Reviews 44: 1074–1095. 10.1210/endrev/bnad020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 451. Ata, Baris , Yildiz Sule, Turkgeldi Engin, Brocal Vicente Pérez, Dinleyici Ener Cagri, Moya Andrés, and Urman Bulent. 2019. “The Endobiota Study: Comparison of Vaginal, Cervical and Gut Microbiota Between Women With Stage 3/4 Endometriosis and Healthy Controls.” Scientific Reports 9: 2204. 10.1038/s41598-019-39700-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 452. Perrotta, Allison R. , Borrelli Giuliano M., Martins Carlo O., Kallas Esper G., Sanabani Sabri S., Griffith Linda G., Alm Eric J., and Abrao Mauricio S.. 2020. “The Vaginal Microbiome as a Tool to Predict rASRM Stage of Disease in Endometriosis: A Pilot Study.” Reproductive Sciences 27: 1064–1073. 10.1007/s43032-019-00113-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 453. Svensson, Agnes , Brunkwall Louise, Roth Bodil, Orho‐Melander Marju, and Ohlsson Bodil. 2021. “Associations Between Endometriosis and Gut Microbiota.” Reproductive Sciences 28: 2367–2377. 10.1007/s43032-021-00506-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 454. Yuan, Ming , Li Dong, Zhang Zhe, Sun Huihui, An Min, and Wang Guoyun. 2018. “Endometriosis Induces Gut Microbiota Alterations in Mice.” Human Reproduction 33: 607–616. 10.1093/humrep/dex372 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 455. Shan, Jing , Ni Zhexin, Cheng Wen, Zhou Ling, Zhai Dongxia, Sun Shuai, and Yu Chaoqin. 2021. “Gut Microbiota Imbalance and Its Correlations With Hormone and Inflammatory Factors in Patients With Stage 3/4 Endometriosis.” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 304: 1363–1373. 10.1007/s00404-021-06057-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 456. Chadchan, Sangappa B. , Cheng Meng, Parnell Lindsay A., Yin Yin, Schriefer Andrew, Mysorekar Indira U., and Kommagani Ramakrishna. 2019. “Antibiotic Therapy With Metronidazole Reduces Endometriosis Disease Progression in Mice: A Potential Role for Gut Microbiota.” Human Reproduction 34: 1106–1116. 10.1093/humrep/dez041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 457. Chadchan, Sangappa B. , Popli Pooja, Ambati Chandrasekhar R., Tycksen Eric, Han Sang Jun, Bulun Serdar E., Putluri Nagireddy, Biest Scott W., and Kommagani Ramakrishna. 2021. “Gut Microbiota‐Derived Short‐Chain Fatty Acids Protect Against the Progression of Endometriosis.” Life Science Alliance 4: e202101224. 10.26508/lsa.202101224 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 458. Tian, Zhenyu , Zhang Xinjie, Yao Guixiang, Jin Jiajia, Zhang Tongxue, Sun Chunhua, Wang Zhe, and Zhang Qunye. 2024. “Intestinal Flora and Pregnancy Complications: Current Insights and Future Prospects.” iMeta 3: e167. 10.1002/imt2.167 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 459. Koren, Omry , Konnikova Liza, Brodin Petter, Mysorekar Indira U., and Collado Maria Carmen. 2024. “The Maternal Gut Microbiome in Pregnancy: Implications for the Developing Immune System.” Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology 21: 35–45. 10.1038/s41575-023-00864-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 460. McIntyre, H David , Catalano Patrick, Zhang Cuilin, Desoye Gernot, Mathiesen Elisabeth R., and Damm Peter. 2019. “Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.” Nature Reviews Disease Primers 5: 47. 10.1038/s41572-019-0098-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 461. Egidy Assenza, Gabriele , Dimopoulos Konstantinos, Budts Werner, Donti Andrea, Economy Katherine E., Gargiulo Gaetano Domenico, Gatzoulis Michael, et al. 2021. “Management of Acute Cardiovascular Complications in Pregnancy.” European Heart Journal 42: 4224–4240. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab546 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 462. Koren, Omry , Goodrich Julia K., Cullender Tyler C., Spor Aymé, Laitinen Kirsi, Kling Bäckhed Helene, Gonzalez Antonio, et al. 2012. “Host Remodeling of the Gut Microbiome and Metabolic Changes During Pregnancy.” Cell 150: 470–480. 10.1016/j.cell.2012.07.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 463. Fu, Yuanqing , Gou Wanglong, Wu Ping, Lai Yuwei, Liang Xinxiu, Zhang Ke, Shuai Menglei, et al. 2024. “Landscape of the Gut Mycobiome Dynamics During Pregnancy and Its Relationship With Host Metabolism and Pregnancy Health.” Gut 73: 1302–1312. 10.1136/gutjnl-2024-332260 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 464. García‐Gómez, Elizabeth , González‐Pedrajo Bertha, and Camacho‐Arroyo Ignacio. 2013. “Role of Sex Steroid Hormones in Bacterial‐Host Interactions.” BioMed Research International 2013: 928290. 10.1155/2013/928290 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 465. Zheng, Danping , Liwinski Timur, and Elinav Eran. 2020. “Interaction Between Microbiota and Immunity in Health and Disease.” Cell Research 30: 492–506. 10.1038/s41422-020-0332-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 466. Hivert, Marie‐France , Backman Helena, Benhalima Katrien, Catalano Patrick, Desoye Gernot, Immanuel Jincy, McKinlay Christopher J. D., et al. 2024. “Pathophysiology From Preconception, During Pregnancy, and Beyond.” The Lancet 404: 158–174. 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00827-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 467. Sun, Zhonghan , Pan Xiong‐Fei, Li Xiao, Jiang Limiao, Hu Ping, Wang Yi, Ye Yi, et al. 2023. “The Gut Microbiome Dynamically Associates With Host Glucose Metabolism Throughout Pregnancy: Longitudinal Findings From a Matched Case‐Control Study of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.” Advanced Science 10: e2205289. 10.1002/advs.202205289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 468. Hasain, Zubaidah , Mokhtar Norfilza Mohd, Kamaruddin Nor Azmi, Mohamed Ismail Nor Azlin, Razalli Nurul Huda, Gnanou Justin Vijay, and Raja Ali Raja Affendi. 2020. “Gut Microbiota and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Review of Host‐Gut Microbiota Interactions and Their Therapeutic Potential.” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 10: 188. 10.3389/fcimb.2020.00188 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 469. Larraufie, P. , Martin‐Gallausiaux C., Lapaque N., Dore J., Gribble F. M., Reimann F., and Blottiere H. M.. 2018. “Scfas Strongly Stimulate PYY Production in Human Enteroendocrine Cells.” Scientific Reports 8: 74. 10.1038/s41598-017-18259-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 470. Dimitriadis, Evdokia , Rolnik Daniel L., Zhou Wei, Estrada‐Gutierrez Guadalupe, Koga Kaori, Francisco Rossana P. V., Whitehead Clare, et al. 2023. “Pre‐Eclampsia.” Nature Reviews Disease Primers 9: 8. 10.1038/s41572-023-00417-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 471. Chen, Xia , Li Pan, Liu Mian, Zheng Huimin, He Yan, Chen Mu‐Xuan, Tang Wenli, et al. 2020. “Gut Dysbiosis Induces the Development of Pre‐Eclampsia Through Bacterial Translocation.” Gut 69: 513–522. 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 472. Jin, Jiajia , Gao Liaomei, Zou Xiuli, Zhang Yun, Zheng Zhijian, Zhang Xinjie, Li Jiaxuan, et al. 2022. “Gut Dysbiosis Promotes Preeclampsia by Regulating Macrophages and Trophoblasts.” Circulation Research 131: 492–506. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.122.320771 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 473. Chen, Yun , Ou Zihao, Pang Menglan, Tao Zixin, Zheng Xifen, Huang Zhipeng, Wen Dongni, et al. 2023. “Extracellular Vesicles Derived From Akkermansia muciniphila Promote Placentation and Mitigate Preeclampsia in a Mouse Model.” Journal of Extracellular Vesicles 12: e12328. 10.1002/jev2.12328 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 474. Argaw‐Denboba, Ayele , Schmidt Thomas S. B., Di Giacomo Monica, Ranjan Bobby, Devendran Saravanan, Mastrorilli Eleonora, Lloyd Catrin T., et al. 2024. “Paternal Microbiome Perturbations Impact Offspring Fitness.” Nature 629: 652–659. 10.1038/s41586-024-07336-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 475. Gribble, Fiona M. , and Reimann Frank. 2016. “Enteroendocrine Cells: Chemosensors in the Intestinal Epithelium.” Annual Review of Physiology 78: 277–299. 10.1146/annurev-physiol-021115-105439 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 476. Holst, Jens Juul . 2007. “The Physiology of Glucagon‐Like Peptide 1.” Physiological Reviews 87: 1409–1439. 10.1152/physrev.00034.2006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 477. Breit, Sigrid , Kupferberg Aleksandra, Rogler Gerhard, and Hasler Gregor. 2018. “Vagus Nerve as Modulator of the Brain‐Gut Axis in Psychiatric and Inflammatory Disorders.” Frontiers in Psychiatry 9: 44. 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 478. Furness, John B . 2012. “The Enteric Nervous System and Neurogastroenterology.” Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology 9: 286–294. 10.1038/nrgastro.2012.32 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 479. Sudo, Nobuyuki , Chida Yoichi, Aiba Yuji, Sonoda Junko, Oyama Naomi, Yu Xiao‐Nian, Kubo Chiharu, and Koga Yasuhiro. 2004. “Postnatal Microbial Colonization Programs the Hypothalamic‐Pituitary‐Adrenal System for Stress Response in Mice.” The Journal of Physiology 558: 263–275. 10.1113/jphysiol.2004.063388 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 480. Fetissov, Sergueï O , Harro Jaanus, Jaanisk Maiken, Järv Anu, Podar Iris, Allik Jüri, Nilsson Ida, et al. 2005. “Autoantibodies Against Neuropeptides Are Associated With Psychological Traits in Eating Disorders.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 14865–14870. 10.1073/pnas.0507204102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 481. Cryan, John F. , and Dinan Timothy G.. 2012. “Mind‐Altering Microorganisms: The Impact of the Gut Microbiota on Brain and Behaviour.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 13: 701–712. 10.1038/nrn3346 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 482. Qin, Junjie , Li Yingrui, Cai Zhiming, Li Shenghui, Zhu Jianfeng, Zhang Fan, Liang Suisha, et al. 2012. “A Metagenome‐Wide Association Study of Gut Microbiota in Type 2 Diabetes.” Nature 490: 55–60. 10.1038/nature11450 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 483. Zhao, Liping , Zhang Feng, Ding Xiaoying, Wu Guojun, Lam Yan Y., Wang Xuejiao, Fu Huaqing, et al. 2018. “Gut Bacteria Selectively Promoted by Dietary Fibers Alleviate Type 2 Diabetes.” Science 359: 1151–1156. 10.1126/science.aao5774 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 484. Wu, Hao , Tremaroli Valentina, Schmidt Caroline, Lundqvist Annika, Olsson Lisa M., Krämer Manuela, Gummesson Anders, et al. 2020. “The Gut Microbiota in Prediabetes and Diabetes: A Population‐Based Cross‐Sectional Study.” Cell Metabolism 32: 379–390.e3. 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.06.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 485. Karlsson, Fredrik H. , Tremaroli Valentina, Nookaew Intawat, Bergström Göran, Behre Carl Johan, Fagerberg Björn, Nielsen Jens, and Bäckhed Fredrik. 2013. “Gut Metagenome in European Women With Normal, Impaired and Diabetic Glucose Control.” Nature 498: 99–103. 10.1038/nature12198 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 486. Chen, Bingting , Bai Yu, Tong Fenglian, Yan Junlin, Zhang Rui, Zhong Yewei, Tan Huiwen, and Ma Xiaoli. 2023. “Glycoursodeoxycholic Acid Regulates Bile Acids Level and Alters Gut Microbiota and Glycolipid Metabolism to Attenuate Diabetes.” Gut Microbes 15: 2192155. 10.1080/19490976.2023.2192155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 487. Pedersen, Helle Krogh , Gudmundsdottir Valborg, Nielsen Henrik Bjørn, Hyotylainen Tuulia, Nielsen Trine, Jensen Benjamin A. H., Forslund Kristoffer, et al. 2016. “Human Gut Microbes Impact Host Serum Metabolome and Insulin Sensitivity.” Nature 535: 376–381. 10.1038/nature18646 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 488. Molinaro, Antonio , Bel Lassen Pierre, Henricsson Marcus, Wu Hao, Adriouch Solia, Belda Eugeni, Chakaroun Rima, et al. 2020. “Imidazole Propionate Is Increased in Diabetes and Associated With Dietary Patterns and Altered Microbial Ecology.” Nature Communications 11: 5881. 10.1038/s41467-020-19589-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 489. Canfora, Emanuel E. , Jocken Johan W., and Blaak Ellen E.. 2015. “Short‐Chain Fatty Acids in Control of Body Weight and Insulin Sensitivity.” Nature Reviews Endocrinology 11: 577–591. 10.1038/nrendo.2015.128 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 490. Silva, Akila De , and Bloom Stephen R.. 2012. “Gut Hormones and Appetite Control: A Focus on PYY and GLP‐1 as Therapeutic Targets in Obesity.” Gut and Liver 6: 10–20. 10.5009/gnl.2012.6.1.10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 491. Li, Zhuang , Yi Chun‐Xia, Katiraei Saeed, Kooijman Sander, Zhou Enchen, Chung Chih Kit, Gao Yuanqing, et al. 2018. “Butyrate Reduces Appetite and Activates Brown Adipose Tissue Via the Gut‐Brain Neural Circuit.” Gut 67: 1269–1279. 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 492. Thomas, Charles , Gioiello Antimo, Noriega Lilia, Strehle Axelle, Oury Julien, Rizzo Giovanni, Macchiarulo Antonio, et al. 2009. “TGR5‐Mediated Bile Acid Sensing Controls Glucose Homeostasis.” Cell Metabolism 10: 167–177. 10.1016/j.cmet.2009.08.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 493. Breton, Jonathan , Tennoune Naouel, Lucas Nicolas, Francois Marie, Legrand Romain, Jacquemot Justine, Goichon Alexis, et al. 2016. “Gut Commensal E. coli Proteins Activate Host Satiety Pathways Following Nutrient‐Induced Bacterial Growth.” Cell Metabolism 23: 324–334. 10.1016/j.cmet.2015.10.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 494. Yoon, Hyo Shin , Cho Chung Hwan, Yun Myeong Sik, Jang Sung Jae, You Hyun Ju, Kim Jun‐Hyeong, Han Dohyun, et al. 2021. “ Akkermansia muciniphila Secretes a Glucagon‐Like Peptide‐1‐Inducing Protein That Improves Glucose Homeostasis and Ameliorates Metabolic Disease in Mice.” Nature Microbiology 6: 563–573. 10.1038/s41564-021-00880-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 495. Trabelsi, Mohamed‐Sami , Daoudi Mehdi, Prawitt Janne, Ducastel Sarah, Touche Véronique, Sayin Sama I., Perino Alessia, et al. 2015. “Farnesoid X Receptor Inhibits Glucagon‐Like Peptide‐1 Production by Enteroendocrine L Cells.” Nature Communications 6: 7629. 10.1038/ncomms8629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 496. Perry, Rachel J. , Peng Liang, Barry Natasha A., Cline Gary W., Zhang Dongyan, Cardone Rebecca L., Petersen Kitt Falk, et al. 2016. “Acetate Mediates a Microbiome‐Brain‐β‐Cell Axis to Promote Metabolic Syndrome.” Nature 534: 213–217. 10.1038/nature18309 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 497. Chimerel, Catalin , Emery Edward, Summers David K., Keyser Ulrich, Gribble Fiona M., and Reimann Frank. 2014. “Bacterial Metabolite Indole Modulates Incretin Secretion From Intestinal Enteroendocrine L Cells.” Cell Reports 9: 1202–1208. 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.10.032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 498. Gao, Zhanguo , Yin Jun, Zhang Jin, Ward Robert E., Martin Roy J., Lefevre Michael, Cefalu William T., and Ye Jianping. 2009. “Butyrate Improves Insulin Sensitivity and Increases Energy Expenditure in Mice.” Diabetes 58: 1509–1517. 10.2337/db08-1637 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 499. Kondo, Tomoo , Kishi Mikiya, Fushimi Takashi, and Kaga Takayuki. 2009. “Acetic Acid Upregulates the Expression of Genes for Fatty Acid Oxidation Enzymes in Liver to Suppress Body Fat Accumulation.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 57: 5982–5986. 10.1021/jf900470c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 500. Mills, Evanna L. , Pierce Kerry A., Jedrychowski Mark P., Garrity Ryan, Winther Sally, Vidoni Sara, Yoneshiro Takeshi, et al. 2018. “Accumulation of Succinate Controls Activation of Adipose Tissue Thermogenesis.” Nature 560: 102–106. 10.1038/s41586-018-0353-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 501. Pathak, Preeti , Xie Cen, Nichols Robert G., Ferrell Jessica M., Boehme Shannon, Krausz Kristopher W., Patterson Andrew D., Gonzalez Frank J., and Chiang John Y. L.. 2018. “Intestine Farnesoid X Receptor Agonist and the Gut Microbiota Activate G‐Protein Bile Acid Receptor‐1 Signaling to Improve Metabolism.” Hepatology 68: 1574–1588. 10.1002/hep.29857 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 502. De Vadder, Filipe , Kovatcheva‐Datchary Petia, Goncalves Daisy, Vinera Jennifer, Zitoun Carine, Duchampt Adeline, Bäckhed Fredrik, and Mithieux Gilles. 2014. “Microbiota‐Generated Metabolites Promote Metabolic Benefits Via Gut‐Brain Neural Circuits.” Cell 156: 84–96. 10.1016/j.cell.2013.12.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 503. De Vadder, Filipe , Kovatcheva‐Datchary Petia, Zitoun Carine, Duchampt Adeline, Bäckhed Fredrik, and Mithieux Gilles. 2016. “Microbiota‐Produced Succinate Improves Glucose Homeostasis Via Intestinal Gluconeogenesis.” Cell Metabolism 24: 151–157. 10.1016/j.cmet.2016.06.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 504. Zhang, Ling , Yang Guangdong, Untereiner Ashley, Ju Youngjun, Wu Lingyun, and Wang Rui. 2013. “Hydrogen Sulfide Impairs Glucose Utilization and Increases Gluconeogenesis in Hepatocytes.” Endocrinology 154: 114–126. 10.1210/en.2012-1658 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 505. MacDonald, Patrick E. , El‐Kholy Wasim, Riedel Michael J., Salapatek Anne Marie F., Light Peter E., and Wheeler Michael B.. 2002. “The Multiple Actions of GLP‐1 on the Process of Glucose‐Stimulated Insulin Secretion.” Diabetes 51(Suppl 3): S434–S442. 10.2337/diabetes.51.2007.S434 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 506. Priyadarshini, Medha , Villa Stephanie R., Fuller Miles, Wicksteed Barton, Mackay Charles R., Alquier Thierry, Poitout Vincent, et al. 2015. “An Acetate‐Specific GPCR, FFAR2, Regulates Insulin Secretion.” Molecular Endocrinology 29: 1055–1066. 10.1210/me.2015-1007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 507. McNelis, Joanne C. , Lee Yun Sok, Mayoral Rafael, van der Kant Rik, Johnson Andrew M. F., Wollam Joshua, and Olefsky Jerrold M.. 2015. “GPR43 Potentiates β‐Cell Function in Obesity.” Diabetes 64: 3203–3217. 10.2337/db14-1938 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 508. Pingitore, Attilio , Chambers Edward S., Hill Thomas, Maldonado Inmaculada Ruz, Liu Bo, Bewick Gavin, Morrison Douglas J., et al. 2017. “The Diet‐Derived Short Chain Fatty Acid Propionate Improves Beta‐Cell Function in Humans and Stimulates Insulin Secretion From Human Islets in Vitro.” Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism 19: 257–265. 10.1111/dom.12811 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 509. Tirosh, Amir , Calay Ediz S., Tuncman Gurol, Claiborn Kathryn C., Inouye Karen E., Eguchi Kosei, Alcala Michael, et al. 2019. “The Short‐Chain Fatty Acid Propionate Increases Glucagon and FABP4 Production, Impairing Insulin Action in Mice and Humans.” Science Translational Medicine 11: eaav0120 [pii]. 10.1126/scitranslmed.aav0120 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 510. Sanna, Serena , van Zuydam Natalie R., Mahajan Anubha, Kurilshikov Alexander, Vich Vila Arnau, Võsa Urmo, Mujagic Zlatan, et al. 2019. “Causal Relationships Among the Gut Microbiome, Short‐Chain Fatty Acids and Metabolic Diseases.” Nature Genetics 51: 600–605. 10.1038/s41588-019-0350-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 511. Koh, Ara , Molinaro Antonio, Ståhlman Marcus, Khan Muhammad Tanweer, Schmidt Caroline, Mannerås‐Holm Louise, Wu Hao, et al. 2018. “Microbially Produced Imidazole Propionate Impairs Insulin Signaling Through mTORC1.” Cell 175: 947–961.e17. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.09.055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 512. de Mello, Vanessa D. , Paananen Jussi, Lindström Jaana, Lankinen Maria A., Shi Lin, Kuusisto Johanna, Pihlajamäki Jussi, et al. 2017. “Indolepropionic Acid and Novel Lipid Metabolites Are Associated With a Lower Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study.” Scientific Reports 7: 46337. 10.1038/srep46337 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 513. Brial, Francois , Alzaid Fawaz, Sonomura Kazuhiro, Kamatani Yoichiro, Meneyrol Kelly, Le Lay Aurélie, Péan Noémie, et al. 2020. “The Natural Metabolite 4‐Cresol Improves Glucose Homeostasis and Enhances β‐Cell Function.” Cell Reports 30: 2306–2320.e5. 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.01.066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 514. Cani, Patrice D. , Bibiloni Rodrigo, Knauf Claude, Waget Aurélie, Neyrinck Audrey M., Delzenne Nathalie M., and Burcelin Rémy. 2008. “Changes in Gut Microbiota Control Metabolic Endotoxemia‐Induced Inflammation in High‐Fat Diet‐Induced Obesity and Diabetes in Mice.” Diabetes 57: 1470–1481. 10.2337/db07-1403 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 515. Liang, Liping , Liu Le, Zhou Wanyan, Yang Chenghai, Mai Genghui, Li Haolin, and Chen Ye. 2022. “Gut Microbiota‐Derived Butyrate Regulates Gut Mucus Barrier Repair by Activating the Macrophage/WNT/ERK Signaling Pathway.” Clinical Science 136: 291–307. 10.1042/CS20210778 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 516. Shin, Na‐Ri , Lee June‐Chul, Lee Hae‐Youn, Kim Min‐Soo, Whon Tae Woong, Lee Myung‐Shik, and Bae Jin‐Woo. 2014. “An Increase in the Akkermansia spp. Population Induced by Metformin Treatment Improves Glucose Homeostasis in Diet‐Induced Obese Mice.” Gut 63: 727–735. 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303839 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 517. Wang, Hong‐Bo , Wang Peng‐Yuan, Wang Xin, Wan Yuan‐Lian, and Liu Yu‐Cun. 2012. “Butyrate Enhances Intestinal Epithelial Barrier Function Via Up‐Regulation of Tight Junction Protein Claudin‐1 Transcription.” Digestive Diseases and Sciences 57: 3126–3135. 10.1007/s10620-012-2259-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 518. Bansal, Tarun , Alaniz Robert C., Wood Thomas K., and Jayaraman Arul. 2010. “The Bacterial Signal Indole Increases Epithelial‐Cell Tight‐Junction Resistance and Attenuates Indicators of Inflammation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 228–233. 10.1073/pnas.0906112107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 519. Plovier, Hubert , Everard Amandine, Druart Céline, Depommier Clara, Van Hul Matthias, Geurts Lucie, Chilloux Julien, et al. 2017. “A Purified Membrane Protein From Akkermansia muciniphila or the Pasteurized Bacterium Improves Metabolism in Obese and Diabetic Mice.” Nature Medicine 23: 107–113. 10.1038/nm.4236 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 520. Mishra, Sidharth P. , Wang Bo, Jain Shalini, Ding Jingzhong, Rejeski Jared, Furdui Cristina M., Kitzman Dalane W., et al. 2023. “A Mechanism by Which Gut Microbiota Elevates Permeability and Inflammation in Obese/Diabetic Mice and Human Gut.” Gut 72: 1848–1865. 10.1136/gutjnl-2022-327365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 521. Takeuchi, Tadashi , Kameyama Keishi, Miyauchi Eiji, Nakanishi Yumiko, Kanaya Takashi, Fujii Takayoshi, Kato Tamotsu, et al. 2023. “Fatty Acid Overproduction by Gut Commensal Microbiota Exacerbates Obesity.” Cell Metabolism 35: 361–375.e9. 10.1016/j.cmet.2022.12.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 522. Wade, Henry , Pan Kaichao, Duan Qihua, Kaluzny Szczepan, Pandey Ekta, Fatumoju Linda, Saraswathi Viswanathan, et al. 2023. “ Akkermansia muciniphila and Its Membrane Protein Ameliorates Intestinal Inflammatory Stress and Promotes Epithelial Wound Healing via CREBH and miR‐143/145.” Journal of Biomedical Science 30: 38. 10.1186/s12929-023-00935-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 523. Cani, Patrice D. , Amar Jacques, Iglesias Miguel Angel, Poggi Marjorie, Knauf Claude, Bastelica Delphine, Neyrinck Audrey M., et al. 2007. “Metabolic Endotoxemia Initiates Obesity and Insulin Resistance.” Diabetes 56: 1761–1772. 10.2337/db06-1491 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 524. Furusawa, Yukihiro , Obata Yuuki, Fukuda Shinji, Endo Takaho A., Nakato Gaku, Takahashi Daisuke, Nakanishi Yumiko, et al. 2013. “Commensal Microbe‐Derived Butyrate Induces the Differentiation of Colonic Regulatory T Cells.” Nature 504: 446–450. 10.1038/nature12721 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 525. Hinrichsen, Finn , Hamm Jacob, Westermann Magdalena, Schröder Lena, Shima Kensuke, Mishra Neha, Walker Alesia, et al. 2021. “Microbial Regulation of Hexokinase 2 Links Mitochondrial Metabolism and Cell Death in Colitis.” Cell Metabolism 33: 2355–2366.e8. 10.1016/j.cmet.2021.11.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 526. Sokol, Harry , Pigneur Bénédicte, Watterlot Laurie, Lakhdari Omar, Bermúdez‐Humarán Luis G., Gratadoux Jean‐Jacques, Blugeon Sébastien, et al. 2008. “ Faecalibacterium prausnitzii is an Anti‐inflammatory Commensal Bacterium Identified by Gut Microbiota Analysis of Crohn Disease Patients.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 16731–16736. 10.1073/pnas.0804812105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 527. Vrieze, Anne , Van Nood Els, Holleman Frits, Salojärvi Jarkko, Kootte Ruud S., Bartelsman Joep F. W. M., Dallinga–Thie Geesje M., et al. 2012. “Transfer of Intestinal Microbiota From Lean Donors Increases Insulin Sensitivity in Individuals With Metabolic Syndrome.” Gastroenterology 143: 913–916.e7. 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.06.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 528. Kootte, Ruud S. , Levin Evgeni, Salojärvi Jarkko, Smits Loek P., Hartstra Annick V., Udayappan Shanti D., Hermes Gerben, et al. 2017. “Improvement of Insulin Sensitivity After Lean Donor Feces in Metabolic Syndrome Is Driven by Baseline Intestinal Microbiota Composition.” Cell Metabolism 26: 611–619.e6. 10.1016/j.cmet.2017.09.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 529. Yang, Junpeng , Yang Xueli, Wu Guojun, Huang Fenglian, Shi Xiaoyang, Wei Wei, Zhang Yingchao, et al. 2023. “Gut Microbiota Modulate Distal Symmetric Polyneuropathy in Patients With Diabetes.” Cell Metabolism 35: 1548–1562.e7. 10.1016/j.cmet.2023.06.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 530. Li, Guang , Feng Hao, Mao Xin‐Liang, Deng Yan‐Jun, Wang Xiao‐Bao, Zhang Qiong, Guo Yan, and Xiao Su‐Mei. 2023. “The Effects of Probiotics Supplementation on Glycaemic Control Among Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials.” Journal of Translational Medicine 21: 442. 10.1186/s12967-023-04306-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 531. Xiao, Shuiming , Fei Na, Pang Xiaoyan, Shen Jian, Wang Linghua, Zhang Baorang, Zhang Menghui, et al. 2014. “A Gut Microbiota‐Targeted Dietary Intervention for Amelioration of Chronic Inflammation Underlying Metabolic Syndrome.” FEMS Microbiology Ecology 87: 357–367. 10.1111/1574-6941.12228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 532. Candela, Marco , Biagi Elena, Soverini Matteo, Consolandi Clarissa, Quercia Sara, Severgnini Marco, Peano Clelia, et al. 2016. “Modulation of Gut Microbiota Dysbioses in Type 2 Diabetic Patients by Macrobiotic Ma‐Pi 2 Diet.” British Journal of Nutrition 116: 80–93. 10.1017/S0007114516001045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 533. Kovatcheva‐Datchary, Petia , Nilsson Anne, Akrami Rozita, Lee Ying Shiuan, De Vadder Filipe, Arora Tulika, Hallen Anna, et al. 2015. “Dietary Fiber‐Induced Improvement in Glucose Metabolism Is Associated With Increased Abundance of Prevotella.” Cell Metabolism 22: 971–982. 10.1016/j.cmet.2015.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 534. Canfora, Emanuel E. , van der Beek Christina M., Hermes Gerben D. A., Goossens Gijs H., Jocken Johan W. E., Holst Jens J., van Eijk Hans M., et al. 2017. “Supplementation of Diet With Galacto‐Oligosaccharides Increases Bifidobacteria, but Not Insulin Sensitivity, in Obese Prediabetic Individuals.” Gastroenterology 153: 87–97.e3. 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.03.051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 535. Liu, Feitong , Li Pan, Chen Muxuan, Luo Yuemei, Prabhakar M., Zheng Huimin, He Yan, et al. 2017. “Fructooligosaccharide (FOS) and Galactooligosaccharide (GOS) Increase Bifidobacterium but Reduce Butyrate Producing Bacteria With Adverse Glycemic Metabolism in Healthy Young Population.” Scientific Reports 7: 11789. 10.1038/s41598-017-10722-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 536. Agirman, Gulistan , and Hsiao Elaine Y.. 2021. “Snapshot: The Microbiota‐Gut‐Brain Axis.” Cell 184: 2524.e1. 10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 537. Morais, Livia H. , Schreiber Henry L. 4th, and Mazmanian Sarkis K.. 2021. “The Gut Microbiota‐Brain Axis in Behaviour and Brain Disorders.” Nature Reviews Microbiology 19: 241–255. 10.1038/s41579-020-00460-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 538. Collins, Stephen M. , Surette Michael, and Bercik Premysl. 2012. “The Interplay Between the Intestinal Microbiota and the Brain.” Nature Reviews Microbiology 10: 735–742. 10.1038/nrmicro2876 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 539. Sharon, Gil , Sampson Timothy R., Geschwind Daniel H., and Mazmanian Sarkis K.. 2016. “The Central Nervous System and the Gut Microbiome.” Cell 167: 915–932. 10.1016/j.cell.2016.10.027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 540. Yu, Lewis W. , Agirman Gulistan, and Hsiao Elaine Y.. 2022. “The Gut Microbiome as a Regulator of the Neuroimmune Landscape.” Annual Review of Immunology 40: 143–167. 10.1146/annurev-immunol-101320-014237 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 541. Fan, Yong , and Pedersen Oluf. 2021. “Gut Microbiota in Human Metabolic Health and Disease.” Nature Reviews Microbiology 19: 55–71. 10.1038/s41579-020-0433-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 542. Sherwin, Eoin , Bordenstein Seth R., Quinn John L., Dinan Timothy G., and Cryan John F.. 2019. “Microbiota and the Social Brain.” Science 366: eaar2016 [pii]. 10.1126/science.aar2016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 543. Vuong, Helen E. , Pronovost Geoffrey N., Williams Drake W., Coley Elena J. L., Siegler Emily L., Qiu Austin, Kazantsev Maria, et al. 2020. “The Maternal Microbiome Modulates Fetal Neurodevelopment in Mice.” Nature 586: 281–286. 10.1038/s41586-020-2745-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 544. Lee, Sangmoon , and Gleeson Joseph G.. 2020. “Closing in on Mechanisms of Open Neural Tube Defects.” Trends in Neurosciences 43: 519–532. 10.1016/j.tins.2020.04.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 545. Buss, Claudia . 2021. “Maternal Oxidative Stress During Pregnancy and Offspring Neurodevelopment.” Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 93: 6–7. 10.1016/j.bbi.2021.01.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 546. Cavalli, Giacomo , and Heard Edith. 2019. “Advances in Epigenetics Link Genetics to the Environment and Disease.” Nature 571: 489–499. 10.1038/s41586-019-1411-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 547. Lee, Younga H. , Cherkerzian Sara, Seidman Larry J., Papandonatos George D., Savitz David A., Tsuang Ming T., Goldstein Jill M., and Buka Stephen L.. 2020. “Maternal Bacterial Infection During Pregnancy and Offspring Risk of Psychotic Disorders: Variation by Severity of Infection and Offspring Sex.” American Journal of Psychiatry 177: 66–75. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.18101206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 548. Graham, Alice M. , Doyle Olivia, Tilden Ellen L., Sullivan Elinor L., Gustafsson Hanna C., Marr Mollie, Allen Madeleine, and Mackiewicz Seghete Kristen L.. 2022. “Effects of Maternal Psychological Stress During Pregnancy on Offspring Brain Development: Considering the Role of Inflammation and Potential for Preventive Intervention.” Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging 7: 461–470. 10.1016/j.bpsc.2021.10.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 549. Amaro, Andreia , Baptista Filipa I., and Matafome Paulo. 2022. “Programming of Future Generations During Breastfeeding: The Intricate Relation Between Metabolic and Neurodevelopment Disorders.” Life Sciences 298: 120526. 10.1016/j.lfs.2022.120526 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 550. Deoni, Sean , Dean Douglas 3rd, Joelson Sarah, O'Regan Jonathan, and Schneider Nora. 2018. “Early Nutrition Influences Developmental Myelination and Cognition in Infants and Young Children.” NeuroImage 178: 649–659. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.056 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 551. Kong, Linghua , Chen Xinxia, Liang Yajun, Forsell Yvonne, Gissler Mika, and Lavebratt Catharina. 2022. “Association of Preeclampsia and Perinatal Complications With Offspring Neurodevelopmental and Psychiatric Disorders.” JAMA Network Open 5: e2145719. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.45719 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 552. Borre, Yuliya E. , O'Keeffe Gerard W., Clarke Gerard, Stanton Catherine, Dinan Timothy G., and Cryan John F.. 2014. “Microbiota and Neurodevelopmental Windows: Implications for Brain Disorders.” Trends in Molecular Medicine 20: 509–518. 10.1016/j.molmed.2014.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 553. Xiao, Liwen , Wang Jinfeng, Zheng Jiayong, Li Xiaoqing, and Zhao Fangqing. 2021. “Deterministic Transition of Enterotypes Shapes the Infant Gut Microbiome at an Early Age.” Genome Biology 22: 243. 10.1186/s13059-021-02463-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 554. Heijtz, Rochellys Diaz , Wang Shugui, Anuar Farhana, Qian Yu, Björkholm Britta, Samuelsson Annika, Hibberd Martin L., Forssberg Hans, and Pettersson Sven. 2011. “Normal Gut Microbiota Modulates Brain Development and Behavior.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 3047–3052. 10.1073/pnas.1010529108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 555. de Theije, Caroline G. M. , Wopereis Harm, Ramadan Mohamed, van Eijndthoven Tiemen, Lambert Jolanda, Knol Jan, Garssen Johan, Kraneveld Aletta D., and Oozeer Raish. 2014. “Altered Gut Microbiota and Activity in a Murine Model of Autism Spectrum Disorders.” Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 37: 197–206. 10.1016/j.bbi.2013.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 556. Clarke, G. , Grenham S., Scully P., Fitzgerald P., Moloney R. D., Shanahan F., Dinan T. G., and Cryan J. F.. 2013. “The Microbiome‐Gut‐Brain Axis During Early Life Regulates the Hippocampal Serotonergic System in a Sex‐Dependent Manner.” Molecular Psychiatry 18: 666–673. 10.1038/mp.2012.77 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 557. Luczynski, Pauline , McVey Neufeld Karen‐Anne, Oriach Clara Seira, Clarke Gerard, Dinan Timothy G., and Cryan John F.. 2016. “Growing up in a Bubble: Using Germ‐Free Animals to Assess the Influence of the Gut Microbiota on Brain and Behavior.” International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 19: pyw020 [pii]. 10.1093/ijnp/pyw020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 558. Baker, Jonathon L. , Mark Welch Jessica L., Kauffman Kathryn M., McLean Jeffrey S., and He Xuesong. 2024. “The Oral Microbiome: Diversity, Biogeography and Human Health.” Nature Reviews Microbiology 22: 89–104. 10.1038/s41579-023-00963-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 559. Amabebe, Emmanuel , and Anumba Dilly O. C.. 2020. “Female Gut and Genital Tract Microbiota‐Induced Crosstalk and Differential Effects of Short‐Chain Fatty Acids on Immune Sequelae.” Frontiers in Immunology 11: 2184. 10.3389/fimmu.2020.02184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 560. Younes, Jessica A. , Lievens Elke, Hummelen Ruben, van der Westen Rebecca, Reid Gregor, and Petrova Mariya I.. 2018. “Women and Their Microbes: the Unexpected Friendship.” Trends in Microbiology 26: 16–32. 10.1016/j.tim.2017.07.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 561. Li, Zhiming , Ju Yanmei, Xia Jingjing, Zhang Zhe, Zhen Hefu, Tong Xin, Sun Yuzhe, et al. 2023. “Integrated Human Skin Bacteria Genome Catalog Reveals Extensive Unexplored Habitat‐Specific Microbiome Diversity and Function.” Advanced Science 10: e2300050. 10.1002/advs.202300050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 562. Chen, Y Erin , Fischbach Michael A., and Belkaid Yasmine. 2018. “Skin Microbiota‐Host Interactions.” Nature 553: 427–436. 10.1038/nature25177 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 563. Tan, Xiujun , Wang Yizhong, and Gong Ting. 2023. “The Interplay Between Oral Microbiota, Gut Microbiota and Systematic Diseases.” Journal of Oral Microbiology 15: 2213112. 10.1080/20002297.2023.2213112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 564. Park, Dong Hoon , Kim Joo Wan, Park Hi‐Joon, and Hahm Dae‐Hyun. 2021. “Comparative Analysis of the Microbiome Across the Gut‐Skin Axis in Atopic Dermatitis.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22: 4228. 10.3390/ijms22084228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 565. Ferretti, Pamela , Pasolli Edoardo, Tett Adrian, Asnicar Francesco, Gorfer Valentina, Fedi Sabina, Armanini Federica, et al. 2018. “Mother‐to‐Infant Microbial Transmission From Different Body Sites Shapes the Developing Infant Gut Microbiome.” Cell Host & Microbe 24: 133–45.e5. 10.1016/j.chom.2018.06.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 566. Kennedy, Katherine M. , Gerlach Max J., Adam Thomas, Heimesaat Markus M., Rossi Laura, Surette Michael G., Sloboda Deborah M., and Braun Thorsten. 2021. “Fetal Meconium Does Not Have a Detectable Microbiota before Birth.” Nature Microbiology 6: 865–873. 10.1038/s41564-021-00904-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 567. Li, Yujia , Toothaker Jessica M., Ben‐Simon Shira, Ozeri Lital, Schweitzer Ron, McCourt Blake T., McCourt Collin C., et al. 2020. “In Utero Human Intestine Harbors Unique Metabolome, Including Bacterial Metabolites.” JCI Insight 5: e138751. 10.1172/jci.insight.138751 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 568. Perez‐Muñoz, Maria Elisa , Arrieta Marie‐Claire, Ramer‐Tait Amanda E., and Walter Jens. 2017. “A Critical Assessment of the “Sterile Womb” and “In Utero Colonization” Hypotheses: Implications for Research on the Pioneer Infant Microbiome.” Microbiome 5: 48. 10.1186/s40168-017-0268-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 569. Chen, Chen , Song Xiaolei, Wei Weixia, Zhong Huanzi, Dai Juanjuan, Lan Zhou, Li Fei, et al. 2017. “The Microbiota Continuum Along the Female Reproductive Tract and Its Relation to Uterine‐Related Diseases.” Nature Communications 8: 875. 10.1038/s41467-017-00901-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 570. Mitchell, Caroline M. , Haick Anoria, Nkwopara Evangelyn, Garcia Rochelle, Rendi Mara, Agnew Kathy, Fredricks David N., and Eschenbach David. 2015. “Colonization of the Upper Genital Tract by Vaginal Bacterial Species in Nonpregnant Women.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 212: 611.e1−9. 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.11.043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 571. Santos, Thiago M. A. , and Bicalho Rodrigo C.. 2012. “Diversity and Succession of Bacterial Communities in the Uterine Fluid of Postpartum Metritic, Endometritic and Healthy Dairy Cows.” PloS One 7: e53048. 10.1371/journal.pone.0053048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 572. Blanc, V. , O'Valle F., Pozo E., Puertas A., León R., and Mesa F.. 2015. “Oral Bacteria in Placental Tissues: Increased Molecular Detection in Pregnant Periodontitis Patients.” Oral Diseases 21: 905–912. 10.1111/odi.12364 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 573. Fischer, Lori A. , Demerath Ellen, Bittner‐Eddy Peter, and Costalonga Massimo. 2019. “Placental Colonization With Periodontal Pathogens: The Potential Missing Link.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 221: 383–392.e3. 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.04.029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 574. Muhleisen, Alicia L. , and Herbst‐Kralovetz Melissa M.. 2016. “Menopause and the Vaginal Microbiome.” Maturitas 91: 42–50. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2016.05.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 575. Brodin, Petter . 2022. “Immune‐Microbe Interactions Early in Life: A Determinant of Health and Disease Long Term.” Science 376: 945–950. 10.1126/science.abk2189 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 576. Langel, Stephanie N. , Blasi Maria, and Permar Sallie R.. 2022. “Maternal Immune Protection Against Infectious Diseases.” Cell Host & Microbe 30: 660–674. 10.1016/j.chom.2022.04.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 577. Martinez, David R. , Fong Youyi, Li Shuk Hang, Yang Fang, Jennewein Madeleine F., Weiner Joshua A., Harrell Erin A., et al. 2019. “Fc Characteristics Mediate Selective Placental Transfer of IgG in HIV‐Infected Women.” Cell 178: 190–201.e11. 10.1016/j.cell.2019.05.046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 578. Rollenske, Tim , Burkhalter Sophie, Muerner Lukas, von Gunten Stephan, Lukasiewicz Jolanta, Wardemann Hedda, and Macpherson Andrew J.. 2021. “Parallelism of Intestinal Secretory IgA Shapes Functional Microbial Fitness.” Nature 598: 657–661. 10.1038/s41586-021-03973-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 579. Estes, Myka L. , and McAllister A Kimberley. 2017. “Brain, Immunity, Gut: “Big” Links Between Pregnancy and Autism.” Immunity 47: 816–819. 10.1016/j.immuni.2017.10.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 580. Deshmukh, Hitesh S. , Liu Yuhong, Menkiti Ogechukwu R., Mei Junjie, Dai Ning, O'Leary Claire E., Oliver Paula M., et al. 2014. “The Microbiota Regulates Neutrophil Homeostasis and Host Resistance to Escherichia coli K1 Sepsis in Neonatal Mice.” Nature Medicine 20: 524–530. 10.1038/nm.3542 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 581. Hong, Jun Young , Lim Jaechul, Carvalho Fernando, Cho Jen Young, Vaidyanathan Bharat, Yu Shuang, Annicelli Charles, Ip W.K. Eddie, and Medzhitov Ruslan. 2020. “Long‐Term Programming of CD8 T Cell Immunity by Perinatal Exposure to Glucocorticoids.” Cell 180: 847–861.e15. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 582. Minakova, Elena , and Warner Barbara B.. 2018. “Maternal Immune Activation, Central Nervous System Development and Behavioral Phenotypes.” Birth Defects Research 110: 1539–1550. 10.1002/bdr2.1416 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 583. Estes, Myka L. , and McAllister A Kimberley. 2016. “Maternal Immune Activation: Implications for Neuropsychiatric Disorders.” Science 353: 772–777. 10.1126/science.aag3194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 584. Hayes, Lindsay N. , An Kyongman, Carloni Elisa, Li Fangze, Vincent Elizabeth, Trippaers Chloë, Paranjpe Manish, et al. 2022. “Prenatal Immune Stress Blunts Microglia Reactivity, Impairing Neurocircuitry.” Nature 610: 327–334. 10.1038/s41586-022-05274-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 585. Kim, Eunha , Paik Donggi, Ramirez Ricardo N., Biggs Delaney G., Park Youngjun, Kwon Ho‐Keun, Choi Gloria B., and Huh Jun R.. 2022. “Maternal Gut Bacteria Drive Intestinal Inflammation in Offspring With Neurodevelopmental Disorders by Altering the Chromatin Landscape of CD4+ T Cells.” Immunity 55: 145–158.e7. 10.1016/j.immuni.2021.11.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 586. Han, Velda X. , Patel Shrujna, Jones Hannah F., and Dale Russell C.. 2021. “Maternal Immune Activation and Neuroinflammation in Human Neurodevelopmental Disorders.” Nature Reviews Neurology 17: 564–579. 10.1038/s41582-021-00530-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 587. Guma, Elisa , Bordignon Pedro do Couto, Devenyi Gabriel A., Gallino Daniel, Anastassiadis Chloe, Cvetkovska Vedrana, Barry Amadou D., et al. 2021. “Early or Late Gestational Exposure to Maternal Immune Activation Alters Neurodevelopmental Trajectories in Mice: An Integrated Neuroimaging, Behavioral, and Transcriptional Study.” Biological Psychiatry 90: 328–341. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2021.03.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 588. Mao, Ming‐Jie , Yu Hui‐Ling, Wen Ya‐Zhou, Sun Xiao‐Yun, Xu Chen‐Yang, Gao Yu‐Zhu, Jiang Ming, Yuan Hong‐Mei, and Feng Shan‐Wu. 2022. “Deficit of Perineuronal Net Induced by Maternal Immune Activation Mediates the Cognitive Impairment in Offspring During Adolescence.” Behavioural Brain Research 434: 114027. 10.1016/j.bbr.2022.114027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 589. Ceasrine, Alexis M. , Devlin Benjamin A., Bolton Jessica L., Green Lauren A., Jo Young Chan, Huynh Carolyn, Patrick Bailey, et al. 2022. “Maternal Diet Disrupts the Placenta‐Brain Axis in a Sex‐Specific Manner.” Nature Metabolism 4: 1732–1745. 10.1038/s42255-022-00693-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 590. Gomez de Agüero, Mercedes , Ganal‐Vonarburg Stephanie C., Fuhrer Tobias, Rupp Sandra, Uchimura Yasuhiro, Li Hai, Steinert Anna, et al. 2016. “The Maternal Microbiota Drives Early Postnatal Innate Immune Development.” Science 351: 1296–1302. 10.1126/science.aad2571 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 591. Ziętek, Maciej , Celewicz Zbigniew, and Szczuko Małgorzata. 2021. “Short‐Chain Fatty Acids, Maternal Microbiota and Metabolism in Pregnancy.” Nutrients 13: 1244. 10.3390/nu13041244 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 592. Kimura, Ikuo , Miyamoto Junki, Ohue‐Kitano Ryuji, Watanabe Keita, Yamada Takahiro, Onuki Masayoshi, Aoki Ryo, et al. 2020. “Maternal Gut Microbiota in Pregnancy Influences Offspring Metabolic Phenotype in Mice.” Science 367: eaaw8429 [pii]. 10.1126/science.aaw8429 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 593. Kimura, Ikuo , Inoue Daisuke, Maeda Takeshi, Hara Takafumi, Ichimura Atsuhiko, Miyauchi Satoshi, Kobayashi Makio, Hirasawa Akira, and Tsujimoto Gozoh. 2011. “Short‐Chain Fatty Acids and Ketones Directly Regulate Sympathetic Nervous System via G Protein‐Coupled Receptor 41 (GPR41).” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 8030–8035. 10.1073/pnas.1016088108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 594. Ratsika, Anna , Codagnone Martin G., Bastiaanssen Thomaz F. S., Hoffmann Sarda Fabiana A., Lynch Caoimhe M. K., Ventura‐Silva Ana Paula, Rosell‐Cardona Cristina, et al. 2024. “Maternal High‐Fat Diet‐Induced Microbiota Changes Are Associated With Alterations in Embryonic Brain Metabolites and Adolescent Behaviour.” Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 121: 317–330. 10.1016/j.bbi.2024.07.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 595. Pessa‐Morikawa, Tiina , Husso Aleksi, Kärkkäinen Olli, Koistinen Ville, Hanhineva Kati, Iivanainen Antti, and Niku Mikael. 2022. “Maternal Microbiota‐Derived Metabolic Profile in Fetal Murine Intestine, Brain and Placenta.” BMC Microbiology 22: 46. 10.1186/s12866-022-02457-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 596. Wang, Anran , Zhang Zhen, Ding Qianwen, Yang Yalin, Bindelle Jérôme, Ran Chao, Zhou Zhigang, et al. 2021. “Intestinal Cetobacterium and Acetate Modify Glucose Homeostasis Via Parasympathetic Activation in Zebrafish.” Gut Microbes 13: 1–15. 10.1080/19490976.2021.1900996 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 597. Jakobsson, Hedvig E. , Abrahamsson Thomas R., Jenmalm Maria C., Harris Keith, Quince Christopher, Jernberg Cecilia, Björkstén Bengt, Engstrand Lars, and Andersson Anders F.. 2014. “Decreased Gut Microbiota Diversity, Delayed Bacteroidetes Colonisation and Reduced Th1 Responses in Infants Delivered by Caesarean Section.” Gut 63: 559–566. 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303249 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 598. Elkafas, Hoda , Walls Melinique, Al‐Hendy Ayman, and Ismail Nahed. 2022. “Gut and Genital Tract Microbiomes: Dysbiosis and Link to Gynecological Disorders.” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 12: 1059825. 10.3389/fcimb.2022.1059825 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 599. Graham, Madeline E. , Herbert William G., Song Stephanie D., Raman Harshini N., Zhu Jade E., Gonzalez Paulina E., Walther‐António Marina R. S., and Tetel Marc J.. 2021. “Gut and Vaginal Microbiomes on Steroids: Implications for Women's Health.” Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism 32: 554–565. 10.1016/j.tem.2021.04.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 600. Shao, Yan , Forster Samuel C., Tsaliki Evdokia, Vervier Kevin, Strang Angela, Simpson Nandi, Kumar Nitin, et al. 2019. “Stunted Microbiota and Opportunistic Pathogen Colonization in Caesarean‐Section Birth.” Nature 574: 117–121. 10.1038/s41586-019-1560-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 601. Long, Gao , Hu Yuting, Tao Enfu, Chen Bo, Shu Xiaoli, Zheng Wei, and Jiang Mizu. 2021. “The Influence of Cesarean Section on the Composition and Development of Gut Microbiota During the First 3 Months of Life.” Frontiers in Microbiology 12: 691312. 10.3389/fmicb.2021.691312 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 602. Korpela, Katri , Helve Otto, Kolho Kaija‐Leena, Saisto Terhi, Skogberg Kirsi, Dikareva Evgenia, Stefanovic Vedran, et al. 2020. “Maternal Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Cesarean‐Born Infants Rapidly Restores Normal Gut Microbial Development: A Proof‐of‐Concept Study.” Cell 183: 324–334.e5. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.08.047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 603. Stinson, Lisa F. , and Geddes Donna T.. 2022. “Microbial Metabolites: the Next Frontier in Human Milk.” Trends in Microbiology 30: 408–410. 10.1016/j.tim.2022.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 604. Kijner, Sivan , Kolodny Oren, and Yassour Moran. 2022. “Human Milk Oligosaccharides and the Infant Gut Microbiome From an Eco‐Evolutionary Perspective.” Current Opinion in Microbiology 68: 102156. 10.1016/j.mib.2022.102156 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 605. Selma‐Royo, Marta , Calvo Lerma Joaquim, Cortés‐Macías Erika, and Collado Maria Carmen. 2021. “Human Milk Microbiome: From Actual Knowledge to Future Perspective.” Seminars in Perinatology 45: 151450. 10.1016/j.semperi.2021.151450 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 606. Yung, Claire , Zhang Yang, Kuhn Madeline, Armstrong Randall J., Olyaei Amy, Aloia Molly, Scottoline Brian, and Andres Sarah F.. 2024. “Neonatal Enteroids Absorb Extracellular Vesicles From Human Milk‐Fed Infant Digestive Fluid.” Journal of Extracellular Vesicles 13: e12422. 10.1002/jev2.12422 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 607. Andres, Sarah F. , Scottoline Brian, and Good Misty. 2023. “Shaping Infant Development From the Inside Out: Bioactive Factors in Human Milk.” Seminars in Perinatology 47: 151690. 10.1016/j.semperi.2022.151690 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 608. Cortez, J. , Makker K., Kraemer D. F., Neu J., Sharma R., and Hudak M. L.. 2018. “Maternal Milk Feedings Reduce Sepsis, Necrotizing Enterocolitis and Improve Outcomes of Premature Infants.” Journal of Perinatology 38: 71–74. 10.1038/jp.2017.149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 609. Belfort, Mandy Brown , and Inder Terrie E.. 2022. “Human Milk and Preterm Infant Brain Development: A Narrative Review.” Clinical Therapeutics 44: 612–621. 10.1016/j.clinthera.2022.02.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 610. Zhong, Zhi , Tang Hai, Shen Tingting, Ma Xinwei, Zhao Feiyan, Kwok Lai‐Yu, Sun Zhihong, Bilige Menghe, and Zhang Heping. 2022. “ Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis Probio‐M8 Undergoes Host Adaptive Evolution by glcU Mutation and Translocates to the Infant's Gut via Oral‐/Entero‐Mammary Routes Through Lactation.” Microbiome 10: 197. 10.1186/s40168-022-01398-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 611. Azagra‐Boronat, Ignasi , Tres Alba, Massot‐Cladera Malén, Franch Àngels, Castell Margarida, Guardiola Francesc, Pérez‐Cano Francisco J., and Rodríguez‐Lagunas M José. 2020. “ Lactobacillus fermentum CECT5716 Supplementation in Rats During Pregnancy and Lactation Affects Mammary Milk Composition.” Journal of Dairy Science 103: 2982–2992. 10.3168/jds.2019-17384 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 612. Differding, Moira K. , and Mueller Noel T.. 2020. “Human Milk Bacteria: Seeding the Infant Gut?” Cell Host & Microbe 28: 151–153. 10.1016/j.chom.2020.07.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 613. Duranti, Sabrina , Lugli Gabriele Andrea, Mancabelli Leonardo, Armanini Federica, Turroni Francesca, James Kieran, Ferretti Pamela, et al. 2017. “Maternal Inheritance of Bifidobacterial Communities and Bifidophages in Infants Through Vertical Transmission.” Microbiome 5: 66. 10.1186/s40168-017-0282-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 614. Smith, Alexander B. , Jenior Matthew L., Keenan Orlaith, Hart Jessica L., Specker Jonathan, Abbas Arwa, Rangel Paula C., et al. 2022. “Enterococci Enhance Clostridioides difficile Pathogenesis.” Nature 611: 780–786. 10.1038/s41586-022-05438-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 615. Bunis, Daniel G. , Bronevetsky Yelena, Krow‐Lucal Elisabeth, Bhakta Nirav R., Kim Charles C., Nerella Srilaxmi, Jones Norman, et al. 2021. “Single‐Cell Mapping of Progressive Fetal‐to‐Adult Transition in Human Naive T Cells.” Cell Reports 34: 108573. 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.108573 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 616. Huertas‐Díaz, Lucía , Kyhnau Rikke, Ingribelli Eugenio, Neuzil‐Bunesova Vera, Li Qing, Sasaki Mari, Lauener Roger P., et al. 2023. “Breastfeeding and the Major Fermentation Metabolite Lactate Determine Occurrence of Peptostreptococcaceae in Infant Feces.” Gut Microbes 15: 2241209. 10.1080/19490976.2023.2241209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 617. Jiang, Suhua , Cai Mengyun, Li Dingru, Chen Xiangping, Chen Xiaoqian, Huang Qitao, Zhong Caimei, et al. 2024. “Association of Breast Milk‐Derived Arachidonic Acid‐Induced Infant Gut Dysbiosis With the Onset of Atopic Dermatitis.” Gut 74: 45–57 [pii]. 10.1136/gutjnl-2024-332407 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 618. Beverly, Robert L. , Woonnimani Prajna, Scottoline Brian P., Lueangsakulthai Jiraporn, and Dallas David C.. 2021. “Peptides From the Intestinal Tract of Breast Milk‐Fed Infants Have Antimicrobial and Bifidogenic Activity.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22: 2377. 10.3390/ijms22052377 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 619. Browne, Hilary P. , Shao Yan, and Lawley Trevor D.. 2022. “Mother‐Infant Transmission of Human Microbiota.” Current opinion in Microbiology 69: 102173. 10.1016/j.mib.2022.102173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 620. Davis, Erin C. , Wang Mei, and Donovan Sharon M.. 2022. “Microbial Interrelationships Across Sites of Breastfeeding Mothers and Infants at 6 Weeks Postpartum.” Microorganisms 10: 1155. 10.3390/microorganisms10061155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 621. Gołębiewski, Marcin , Łoś‐Rycharska Ewa, Sikora Marcin, Grzybowski Tomasz, Gorzkiewicz Marta, and Krogulska Aneta. 2021. “Mother's Milk Microbiome Shaping Fecal and Skin Microbiota in Infants With Food Allergy and Atopic Dermatitis: A Pilot Analysis.” Nutrients 13: 3600. 10.3390/nu13103600 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 622. Pannaraj, Pia S. , Li Fan, Cerini Chiara, Bender Jeffrey M., Yang Shangxin, Rollie Adrienne, Adisetiyo Helty, et al. 2017. “Association Between Breast Milk Bacterial Communities and Establishment and Development of the Infant Gut Microbiome.” JAMA Pediatrics 171: 647–654. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.0378 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 623. Wang, Yan‐Ren , Zhu Ting, Kong Fan‐Qi, Duan Yuan‐Yuan, Galzote Carlos, and Quan Zhe‐Xue. 2022. “Infant Mode of Delivery Shapes the Skin Mycobiome of Prepubescent Children.” Microbiology Spectrum 10: e0226722. 10.1128/spectrum.02267-22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 624. Eckermann, Henrik Andreas , Meijer Jennifer, Cooijmans Kelly, Lahti Leo, and de Weerth Carolina. 2024. “Daily Skin‐to‐Skin Contact Alters Microbiota Development in Healthy Full‐Term Infants.” Gut Microbes 16: 2295403. 10.1080/19490976.2023.2295403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 625. Feldman, Ruth , Rosenthal Zehava, and Eidelman Arthur I.. 2014. “Maternal‐Preterm Skin‐to‐Skin Contact Enhances Child Physiologic Organization and Cognitive Control Across the First 10 Years of Life.” Biological Psychiatry 75: 56–64. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.08.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 626. Feldman, Ruth , and Eidelman Arthur I.. 2003. “Skin‐To‐Skin Contact (Kangaroo Care) Accelerates Autonomic and Neurobehavioural Maturation in Preterm Infants.” Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 45: 274–281. 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2003.tb00343.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 627. Rheinheimer, Nicole , Beijers Roseriet, Bruinhof Nina, Cooijmans Kelly H. M., and de Weerth Carolina. 2023. “Effects of Daily Full‐Term Infant Skin‐to‐Skin Contact on Behavior and Cognition at Age Three—Secondary Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 64: 136–144. 10.1111/jcpp.13679 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 628. Li, Yanan , Kong Wenjun, Yang Wei, Patel Riddhi M., Casey Emily B., Okeyo‐Owuor Theresa, White J Michael, et al. 2020. “Single‐Cell Analysis of Neonatal HSC Ontogeny Reveals Gradual and Uncoordinated Transcriptional Reprogramming That Begins before Birth.” Cell Stem Cell 27: 732–747.e7. 10.1016/j.stem.2020.08.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 629. Zhao, Caijun , Hu Xiaoyu, Bao Lijuan, Wu Keyi, Zhao Yihong, Xiang Kaihe, Li Shuang, et al. 2022. “Gut Dysbiosis Induces the Development of Mastitis Through a Reduction in Host Anti‐Inflammatory Enzyme Activity by Endotoxemia.” Microbiome 10: 205. 10.1186/s40168-022-01402-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 630. Johnson, Kelsey E. , Hernandez‐Alvarado Nelmary, Blackstad Mark, Heisel Timothy, Allert Mattea, Fields David A., Isganaitis Elvira, et al. 2024. “Human Cytomegalovirus in Breast Milk Is Associated With Milk Composition and the Infant Gut Microbiome and Growth.” Nature Communications 15: 6216. 10.1038/s41467-024-50282-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 631. Venceslau, Emanuella Meneses , Guida José Paulo, Amaral Eliana, Modena José Luis Proença, and Costa Maria Laura. 2020. “Characterization of Placental Infection by Zika Virus in Humans: A Review of the Literature.” Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia/RBGO Gynecology and Obstetrics 42: 577–585. 10.1055/s-0040-1712126 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 632. Zanluca, Camila , de Noronha Lucia, and Duarte Dos Santos Claudia Nunes. 2018. “Maternal‐Fetal Transmission of the Zika Virus: An Intriguing Interplay.” Tissue Barriers 6: e1402143. 10.1080/21688370.2017.1402143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 633. Aburto, María R , and Cryan John F.. 2024. “Gastrointestinal and Brain Barriers: Unlocking Gates of Communication Across the Microbiota‐Gut‐Brain Axis.” Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology 21: 222–247. 10.1038/s41575-023-00890-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 634. Puopolo, Karen M. , Lynfield Ruth, Cummings James J., Hand Ivan, Adams‐Chapman Ira, Poindexter Brenda, Stewart Dan L., et al. 2019. “Management of Infants at Risk for Group B Streptococcal Disease.” Pediatrics 144: e20191881 [pii]. 10.1542/peds.2019-1881 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 635. Pinho‐Ribeiro, Felipe A. , Baddal Buket, Haarsma Rianne, O'Seaghdha Maghnus, Yang Nicole J., Blake Kimbria J., Portley Makayla, et al. 2018. “Blocking Neuronal Signaling to Immune Cells Treats Streptococcal Invasive Infection.” Cell 173: 1083–1097.e22. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.04.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 636. Pronovost, Geoffrey N. , and Hsiao Elaine Y.. 2019. “Perinatal Interactions Between the Microbiome, Immunity, and Neurodevelopment.” Immunity 50: 18–36. 10.1016/j.immuni.2018.11.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 637. Li, Di , Liu Ran, Wang Ming, Peng Rui, Fu Shuai, Fu Aisi, Le Juan, et al. 2022. “3β‐Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenase Expressed by Gut Microbes Degrades Testosterone and Is Linked to Depression in Males.” Cell Host & Microbe 30: 329–39.e5. 10.1016/j.chom.2022.01.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 638. Kimura, Ikuo , Ozawa Kentaro, Inoue Daisuke, Imamura Takeshi, Kimura Kumi, Maeda Takeshi, Terasawa Kazuya, et al. 2013. “The Gut Microbiota Suppresses Insulin‐Mediated Fat Accumulation Via the Short‐Chain Fatty Acid Receptor GPR43.” Nature Communications 4: 1829. 10.1038/ncomms2852 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 639. Erny, Daniel , and Prinz Marco. 2017. “Gut Microbes Augment Neurodegeneration.” Nature 544: 304–305. 10.1038/nature21910 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 640. Liou, Chia‐Wei , Cheng Sin‐Jhong, Yao Tzu‐Hsuan, Lai Tzu‐Ting, Tsai Yu‐Hsuan, Chien Che‐Wei, Kuo Yu‐Lun, et al. 2023. “Microbial Metabolites Regulate Social Novelty Via caMKII Neurons in the BNST.” Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 113: 104–123. 10.1016/j.bbi.2023.06.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 641. Needham, Brittany D. , Adame Mark D., Serena Gloria, Rose Destanie R., Preston Gregory M., Conrad Mary C., Campbell A Stewart, et al. 2021. “Plasma and Fecal Metabolite Profiles in Autism Spectrum Disorder.” Biological Psychiatry 89: 451–462. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.09.025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 642. Needham, Brittany D. , Funabashi Masanori, Adame Mark D., Wang Zhuo, Boktor Joseph C., Haney Jillian, Wu Wei‐Li, et al. 2022. “A Gut‐Derived Metabolite Alters Brain Activity and Anxiety Behaviour in Mice.” Nature 602: 647–653. 10.1038/s41586-022-04396-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 643. Mayer, Emeran A . 2011. “Gut Feelings: The Emerging Biology of Gut‐Brain Communication.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 12: 453–466. 10.1038/nrn3071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 644. Wang, Jinfeng , Zheng Jiayong, Shi Wenyu, Du Nan, Xu Xiaomin, Zhang Yanming, Ji Peifeng, et al. 2018. “Dysbiosis of Maternal and Neonatal Microbiota Associated With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.” Gut 67: 1614–1625. 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-315988 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 645. Buffington, Shelly A. , Di Prisco Gonzalo Viana, Auchtung Thomas A., Ajami Nadim J., Petrosino Joseph F., and Costa‐Mattioli Mauro. 2016. “Microbial Reconstitution Reverses Maternal Diet‐Induced Social and Synaptic Deficits in Offspring.” Cell 165: 1762–1775. 10.1016/j.cell.2016.06.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 646. Xue, Cunxi , Xie Qinyuan, Zhang Chenhong, Hu Yimeng, Song Xiaoting, Jia Yifan, Shi Xiaoyang, et al. 2022. “Vertical Transmission of the Gut Microbiota Influences Glucose Metabolism in Offspring of Mice With Hyperglycaemia in Pregnancy.” Microbiome 10: 122. 10.1186/s40168-022-01318-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 647. Lippert, R. N. , Hess S., Klemm P., Burgeno L. M., Jahans‐Price T., Walton M. E., Kloppenburg P., and Brüning J. C.. 2020. “Maternal High‐Fat Diet During Lactation Reprograms the Dopaminergic Circuitry in Mice.” The Journal of Clinical Investigation 130: 3761–3776. 10.1172/JCI134412 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 648. Tremaroli, Valentina , and Bäckhed Fredrik. 2012. “Functional Interactions Between the Gut Microbiota and Host Metabolism.” Nature 489: 242–249. 10.1038/nature11552 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 649. Bray, Natasha . 2020. “Mother Mice Tune in to Pup Calls.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 21: 398–399. 10.1038/s41583-020-0327-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 650. Tasaka, Gen‐Ichi , Feigin Libi, Maor Ido, Groysman Maya, DeNardo Laura A., Schiavo Jennifer K., Froemke Robert C., Luo Liqun, and Mizrahi Adi. 2020. “The Temporal Association Cortex Plays a Key Role in Auditory‐Driven Maternal Plasticity.” Neuron 107: 566–579.e7. 10.1016/j.neuron.2020.05.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 651. Lee, Yujung Michelle , Mu Andre, Wallace Martina, Gengatharan Jivani M., Furst Annalee J., Bode Lars, Metallo Christian M., et al. 2021. “Microbiota Control of Maternal Behavior Regulates Early Postnatal Growth of Offspring.” Science Advances 7: eabe6563. 10.1126/sciadv.abe6563 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 652. Liu, Yan , Shan Liang, Liu Tiane, Li Juan, Chen Yongchang, Sun Changhong, Yang Chaojuan, et al. 2023. “Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms of the First Social Relationship: A Conserved Role of 5‐HT From Mice to Monkeys, Upstream of Oxytocin.” Neuron 111: 1468–1485.e7. 10.1016/j.neuron.2023.02.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 653. Descamps, Hélène C , Herrmann Beatrice, Wiredu Daphne, and Thaiss Christoph A.. 2019. “The Path Toward Using Microbial Metabolites as Therapies.” EBioMedicine 44: 747–754. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.05.063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 654. Yin, Shi‐An , and Yang Zhen‐Yu. 2016. “An On‐Line Database for Human Milk Composition in China.” Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition 25: 818–825. 10.6133/apjcn.092015.47 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 655. Bobiński, Rafał , and Bobińska Jagna. 2022. “Fatty Acids of Human Milk—A Review.” International Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition Research 92: 280–291. 10.1024/0300-9831/a000651 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 656. Paquette, Andrew F. , Carbone Beatrice E., Vogel Seth, Israel Erica, Maria Sarah D., Patil Nikita P., Sah Saroj, et al. 2023. “The Human Milk Component Myo‐Inositol Promotes Neuronal Connectivity.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 120: e2221413120. 10.1073/pnas.2221413120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 657. Chao, Agnes S. , Matak Pavle, Pegram Kelly, Powers James, Hutson Collin, Jo Rebecca, Dubois Laura, et al. 2023. “20‐αHydroxycholesterol, an Oxysterol in Human Breast Milk, Reverses Mouse Neonatal White Matter Injury Through Gli‐Dependent Oligodendrogenesis.” Cell Stem Cell 30: 1054–1071.e8. 10.1016/j.stem.2023.07.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 658. Prentice, Philippa M. , Schoemaker Marieke H., Vervoort Jacques, Hettinga Kasper, Lambers Tim T., van Tol Eric A. F., Acerini Carlo L., et al. 2019. “Human Milk Short‐Chain Fatty Acid Composition Is Associated With Adiposity Outcomes in Infants.” The Journal of Nutrition 149: 716–722. 10.1093/jn/nxy320 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 659. Wolfs, Danielle , Lynes Matthew D., Tseng Yu‐Hua, Pierce Stephanie, Bussberg Valerie, Darkwah Abena, Tolstikov Vladimir, et al. 2021. “Brown Fat‐Activating Lipokine 12,13‐diHOME in Human Milk Is Associated With Infant Adiposity.” The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 106: e943–e956. 10.1210/clinem/dgaa799 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 660. Meng, Di , Sommella Eduardo, Salviati Emanuela, Campiglia Pietro, Ganguli Kriston, Djebali Karim, Zhu Weishu, and Walker W. Allan. 2020. “Indole‐3‐Lactic Acid, a Metabolite of Tryptophan, Secreted by Bifidobacterium longum Subspecies Infantis Is Anti‐Inflammatory in the Immature Intestine.” Pediatric Research 88: 209–217. 10.1038/s41390-019-0740-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 661. Renz, Harald , Brandtzaeg Per, and Hornef Mathias. 2011. “The Impact of Perinatal Immune Development on Mucosal Homeostasis and Chronic Inflammation.” Nature Reviews Immunology 12: 9–23. 10.1038/nri3112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 662. Bousbaine, Djenet , Fisch Laura I., London Mariya, Bhagchandani Preksha, Rezende de Castro Tiago B., Mimee Mark, Olesen Scott, et al. 2022. “A Conserved Bacteroidetes Antigen Induces Anti‐Inflammatory Intestinal T Lymphocytes.” Science 377: 660–666. 10.1126/science.abg5645 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 663. Kawamoto, Shimpei , Uemura Ken, Hori Nozomi, Takayasu Lena, Konishi Yusuke, Katoh Kazutaka, Matsumoto Tomonori, et al. 2023. “Bacterial Induction of B Cell Senescence Promotes Age‐Related Changes in the Gut Microbiota.” Nature Cell Biology 25: 865–876. 10.1038/s41556-023-01145-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 664. Cao, Peng , Chen Changmao, Liu An, Shan Qinghong, Zhu Xia, Jia Chunhui, Peng Xiaoqi, et al. 2021. “Early‐Life Inflammation Promotes Depressive Symptoms in Adolescence Via Microglial Engulfment of Dendritic Spines.” Neuron 109: 2573–2589.e9. 10.1016/j.neuron.2021.06.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 665. Walker, W Allan , and Iyengar Rajashri Shuba. 2015. “Breast Milk, Microbiota, and Intestinal Immune Homeostasis.” Pediatric Research 77: 220–228. 10.1038/pr.2014.160 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 666. Jašarević, Eldin , and Bale Tracy L.. 2019. “Prenatal and Postnatal Contributions of the Maternal Microbiome on Offspring Programming.” Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 55: 100797. 10.1016/j.yfrne.2019.100797 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 667. Lycke, N. Y. , and Bemark M.. 2017. “The Regulation of Gut Mucosal IgA B‐Cell Responses: Recent Developments.” Mucosal Immunology 10: 1361–1374. 10.1038/mi.2017.62 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 668. Nakajima, Akihito , Habu Sonoko, Kasai Masataka, Okumura Ko, Ishikawa Dai, Shibuya Tomoyoshi, Kobayashi Osamu, et al. 2020. “Impact of Maternal Dietary Gut Microbial Metabolites on an Offspring's Systemic Immune Response in Mouse Models.” Bioscience of Microbiota, Food and Health 39: 33–38. 10.12938/bmfh.19-013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 669. Figueroa‐Lozano, Susana , and de Vos Paul. 2019. “Relationship Between Oligosaccharides and Glycoconjugates Content in Human Milk and the Development of the Gut Barrier.” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 18: 121–139. 10.1111/1541-4337.12400 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 670. Ackerman, Dorothy L. , Doster Ryan S., Weitkamp Jörn‐Hendrik, Aronoff David M., Gaddy Jennifer A., and Townsend Steven D.. 2017. “Human Milk Oligosaccharides Exhibit Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Properties Against Group B Streptococcus .” ACS Infectious Diseases 3: 595–605. 10.1021/acsinfecdis.7b00064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 671. Tong, Lingjun , Hao Haining, Zhang Zhe, Lv Youyou, Liang Xi, Liu Qiqi, Liu Tongjie, et al. 2021. “Milk‐Derived Extracellular Vesicles Alleviate Ulcerative Colitis by Regulating the Gut Immunity and Reshaping the Gut Microbiota.” Theranostics 11: 8570–8586. 10.7150/thno.62046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 672. Gorczyca, Kamila , Obuchowska Aleksandra, Kimber‐Trojnar Żaneta, Wierzchowska‐Opoka Magdalena, and Leszczyńska‐Gorzelak Bożena. 2022. “Changes in the Gut Microbiome and Pathologies in Pregnancy.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 9961. 10.3390/ijerph19169961 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 673. Otero, Claire E. , Langel Stephanie N., Blasi Maria, and Permar Sallie R.. 2020. “Maternal Antibody Interference Contributes to Reduced Rotavirus Vaccine Efficacy in Developing Countries.” PLoS Pathogens 16: e1009010. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 674. Erickson, John J. , Archer‐Hartmann Stephanie, Yarawsky Alexander E., Miller Jeanette L. C., Seveau Stephanie, Shao Tzu‐Yu, Severance Ashley L., et al. 2022. “Pregnancy Enables Antibody Protection Against Intracellular Infection.” Nature 606: 769–775. 10.1038/s41586-022-04816-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 675. Atyeo, Caroline , and Alter Galit. 2021. “The Multifaceted Roles of Breast Milk Antibodies.” Cell 184: 1486–1499. 10.1016/j.cell.2021.02.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 676. Ramanan, Deepshika , Sefik Esen, Galván‐Peña Silvia, Wu Meng, Yang Liang, Yang Zhen, Kostic Aleksandar, et al. 2020. “An Immunologic Mode of Multigenerational Transmission Governs a Gut Treg Setpoint.” Cell 181: 1276–1290.e13. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 677. Mader, Simone , Brimberg Lior, Vo An, Strohl Joshua J., Crawford James M., Bonnin Alexandre, Carrión Joseph, et al. 2022. “In Utero Exposure to Maternal Anti‐aquaporin‐4 Antibodies Alters Brain Vasculature and Neural Dynamics in Male Mouse Offspring.” Science Translational Medicine 14: eabe9726. 10.1126/scitranslmed.abe9726 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 678. Cansever, Dilay , Petrova Ekaterina, Krishnarajah Sinduya, Mussak Caroline, Welsh Christina A., Mildenberger Wiebke, Mulder Kevin, et al. 2023. “Lactation‐Associated Macrophages Exist in Murine Mammary Tissue and Human Milk.” Nature Immunology 24: 1098–1109. 10.1038/s41590-023-01530-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 679. Xu, Dongqing , Zhou Siyu, Liu Yue, Scott Alan L., Yang Jian, and Wan Fengyi. 2024. “Complement in Breast Milk Modifies Offspring Gut Microbiota to Promote Infant Health.” Cell 187: 750–763.e20. 10.1016/j.cell.2023.12.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 680. Sinha, Anurag Kumar , Laursen Martin Frederik, and Licht Tine Rask. 2024. “Regulation of Microbial Gene Expression: the Key to Understanding Our Gut Microbiome.” Trends in Microbiology S0966‐842X(24)00175‐6 [pii]: in press. 10.1016/j.tim.2024.07.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 681. Zhang, Qian , Schwarz Dennis, Cheng Yumei, and Sohrabi Yahya. 2024. “Unraveling Host Genetics and Microbiome Genome Crosstalk: A Novel Therapeutic Approach.” Trends in Molecular Medicine 30: 1007–1009 [pii]. 10.1016/j.molmed.2024.06.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 682. Barreto, Hugo C. , and Gordo Isabel. 2023. “Intrahost Evolution of the Gut Microbiota.” Nature Reviews Microbiology 21: 590–603. 10.1038/s41579-023-00890-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 683. Agnihotri, Nishtha , and Mohajeri M Hasan. 2022. “Involvement of Intestinal Microbiota in Adult Neurogenesis and the Expression of Brain‐Derived Neurotrophic Factor.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23: 15934. 10.3390/ijms232415934 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 684. Eshleman, Emily M. , Rice Taylor, Potter Crystal, Waddell Amanda, Hashimoto‐Hill Seika, Woo Vivienne, Field Sydney, et al. 2024. “Microbiota‐Derived Butyrate Restricts Tuft Cell Differentiation Via Histone Deacetylase 3 to Modulate Intestinal Type 2 Immunity.” Immunity 57: 319–332.e6. 10.1016/j.immuni.2024.01.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 685. Jia, Dingjiacheng , Wang Qiwen, Qi Yadong, Jiang Yao, He Jiamin, Lin Yifeng, Sun Yong, et al. 2024. “Microbial Metabolite Enhances Immunotherapy Efficacy by Modulating T Cell Stemness in Pan‐Cancer.” Cell 187: 1651–1665.e21. 10.1016/j.cell.2024.02.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 686. González‐Soltero, Rocío , Bailén María, de Lucas Beatriz, Ramírez‐Goercke Maria Isabel, Pareja‐Galeano Helios, and Larrosa Mar. 2020. “Role of Oral and Gut Microbiota in Dietary Nitrate Metabolism and Its Impact on Sports Performance.” Nutrients 12: 3611. 10.3390/nu12123611 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 687. Ruff, William E. , Greiling Teri M., and Kriegel Martin A.. 2020. “Host‐Microbiota Interactions in Immune‐Mediated Diseases.” Nature Reviews Microbiology 18: 521–538. 10.1038/s41579-020-0367-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 688. Chen, Bei‐di , Jia Xin‐Miao, Xu Jia‐Yue, Zhao Li‐Dan, Ji Jun‐Yi, Wu Bing‐Xuan, Ma Yue, et al. 2021. “An Autoimmunogenic and Proinflammatory Profile Defined by the Gut Microbiota of Patients With Untreated Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.” Arthritis & Rheumatology 73: 232–243. 10.1002/art.41511 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 689. Atarashi, Koji , Suda Wataru, Luo Chengwei, Kawaguchi Takaaki, Motoo Iori, Narushima Seiko, Kiguchi Yuya, et al. 2017. “Ectopic Colonization of Oral Bacteria in the Intestine Drives T(H)1 Cell Induction and Inflammation.” Science 358: 359–365. 10.1126/science.aan4526 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 690. Li, Ning , Chen Hongyan, Cheng Yi, Xu Fenghua, Ruan Guangcong, Ying Senhong, Tang Wen, et al. 2021. “Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Relieves Gastrointestinal and Autism Symptoms by Improving the Gut Microbiota in an Open‐Label Study.” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 11: 759435. 10.3389/fcimb.2021.759435 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 691. Forsberg, A. , West C. E., Prescott S. L., and Jenmalm M. C.. 2016. “Pre‐ and Probiotics for Allergy Prevention: Time to Revisit Recommendations?” Clinical & Experimental Allergy 46: 1506–1521. 10.1111/cea.12838 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 692. Sanz, Yolanda . 2011. “Gut Microbiota and Probiotics in Maternal and Infant Health.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 94: S2000–S2005. 10.3945/ajcn.110.001172 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study. Supplementary materials (graphical abstract, slides, videos, Chinese translated version and update materials) may be found in the online DOI or iMeta Science http://www.imeta.science/.
