Abstract
The gut microbiome has become a primary controller of host immunity as well as the pathogenesis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Commensal microbes in healthy persons keep the intestinal and other body barriers intact and regulate mucosal and systemic immune responses and generate metabolites, including short-chain fatty acids and indole derivatives that suppress inflammation and stimulate epithelial healing. These functions are impaired by HIV infection via depletion of gut CD4 + T cells, damage caused to epithelium, microbial translocation, and microbiota disruption. In this review article, we summarize recent studies suggesting that a balanced microbiome can mitigate HIV susceptibility and progression by preserving mucosal defenses, limiting systemic immune activation, and generating antiviral compounds. Other interventions, including probiotics, prebiotics, dietary modulation, and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), have been trialed with mixed outcomes in most cases, showing small but significant changes in the gut microbial composition and/or inflammatory markers. Current evidence highlights the potential of microbiome-targeted strategies to support HIV management; however, substantial gaps remain. Future research should focus on defining protective microbial signatures, developing next-generation live biotherapeutics, exploring metabolite-based therapies, and conducting large, mechanistically driven clinical trials. Harnessing the microbiome’s protective functions could offer novel approaches to reducing HIV transmission, mitigating inflammation, and improving immune reconstitution in infected individuals.
Keywords: Gut microbiome, Antiviral therapy, HIV, AIDS, Gut barriers
Introduction
A multitude of host-associated bacteria thought to affect viral infections, and the makeup of commensal microorganisms influences the development of viral diseases [1]. The gut microbiota and HIV infection are two other areas where this is true [2]. HIV infection results in immunological activation, persistent inflammation, and microbial translocation, undermining the gut barrier [3]. However, alterations to the intestinal barrier substantially influence the development of other age-related, metabolic, immunological, and chronic diseases, including AIDS [4, 5]. Intestinal permeability alters microbiota composition, allowing greater penetration of pathogens or the diffusion of extra bacteria and tiny chemicals into the bloodstream [6]. The gut barrier is affected by these bacterial alterations [7]. The most adverse outcome: these alterations disturb the delicate equilibrium of the gut’s commensal flora. Certain bacteria may pose a danger, but others can counteract or propagate viruses. The buildup of harmful or pro-inflammatory microorganisms is more likely. Consequently, much research has been undertaken to ascertain techniques for avoiding HIV-related illnesses, including (a) controlling the populations of certain microorganisms or (b) managing the microbiota to diminish dangerous bacteria and enhance healthy ones. Despite the fluctuating impact of environmental and dietary factors, it is crucial to examine the gut microbiota of HIV affected individuals [8].
Gut bacteria
The gut microbiota has mostly been examined concerning bacteria. These bacteria, especially those residing in the intestines, have been extensively researched. Analysis of gut microbiota in cross-sectional datasets of diseased and healthy persons indicates that individuals with HIV possess a different bacterial microbiome relative to those without the virus. Both individuals are present [9, 10]. Edda et al. identified the gut microbiota of People living with HIV (PLH) as unique. Pathogenic taxa far exceed commensal species in comparison to PLH. An excess of some gut bacteria, such as Prevotella, may be the primary cause of inflammation [11]. Evidence mostly indicates variations in the variety of microbes, a lessening in beneficial symbiotic bacteria, and an escalation in potent dangerous bacteria as the principal symptoms of gut microbiota changes in PLH [12]. In diverse demographic patterns indicate significant alterations in gut microbiota attributable to the specific characteristics of HIV. The primary characteristics linked with these disparities include sexual orientation, the length and type of antiretroviral therapy (ART), and immunological response status. Research indicates that an infant’s gastrointestinal microbiome may be significantly influenced by the mother’s HIV status [9]. Researchers often examine several cohorts to ascertain the role of gut microorganisms in HIV [13]. Wu et al.‘s study illustrates that the composition of gut microbiota differs between HIV-positive and HIV-negative individuals, due to gut dysbiosis associated with HIV infection [5]. The findings suggest that gut microbiota may serve as a potential therapeutic target for the prevention and therapy of HIV-related conditions. This is equally pertinent to fungi and viruses. Accurately identifying relevant species of gut-residing bacteria, fungi, or viruses continues to pose a considerable problem for researchers in this domain [5].
Gut fungi
The second most significant parameter is fungal mass, influencing gut microbiota composition, behind bacterial bulk. Fungal infections significantly contribute to morbidity and mortality in immunodeficient infected individuals [14]. Fungi have a substantial role in opportunistic infections in patients with HIV, especially those who are immunocompromised [5]. A decline in immunological function is a hallmark of HIV infection. As a result, gut fungi, which are becoming more common illnesses, have attracted significant attention. However, there has only been a limited amount of research done thus far on gut fungus in HIV-infected individuals [15]. Wu et al. [5] found that people with HIV had a different gut fungus diversity than HIV-negative individuals. People with HIV showed both a change in fungal composition and an enhancement in the gut variety of fungi. Yin et al. [1] indicated that the gut mycobiome in patients solely infected with HIV differed from that of healthy persons and those co-infected with HIV and HCV. They came to the conclusion that reciprocal limitation changed the dominant fungus and aided in the spread of illness. These findings clarify the correlation between variations in gut fungi and the spread of HIV illness, hence facilitating the identification of key gut fungi as shown in Table 1 [1].
Table 1.
Summarizes reported changes in gut fungal microbiota among people with HIV, highlighting differences in diversity and abundance across infection status, co-infection, and ART treatment compared to healthy controls
| Gut microbiota | Study comparison | Diversity | Abundance | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fungi | HIV mono-infected vs. Healthy controls | In HIV cases, Eurotiomycetes levels were higher, while Saccharomycetes were lower | Among genera, Aspergillus dominated in healthy participants, whereas Candida was more prevalent in HIV cases. Additionally, HIV patients showed enrichment of Schwanniomyces, Preussia, and Leotiomycetes (including Thelebolales, Thelebolaceae, and Thelebolus), while Agaricomycetes were reduced | [1] |
| Fungi | HIV/HCV co-infected vs. HIV mono-infected vs. Healthy controls | The fungal diversity in co-infected (HIV/HCV) patients was reduced compared to HIV-only cases, but overall similar to healthy individuals | Overall fungal abundance decreased in the co-infected group. Compared with HIV mono-infected cases, co-infected cases showed lower Schwanniomyces and Thelebolus | [1] |
| Fungi | ART-treated HIV + vs. HIV- healthy controls | Overall diversity remained relatively unchanged between groups | Fungal abundance was higher in ART-treated patients. At the phylum level, Ascomycota and Basidiomycota were more prominent in healthy individuals, whereas Mucoromycota and Chytridiomycota appeared specifically in ART-treated cases. At the genus level, Penicillium was more frequent in controls, while Candida was enriched in ART patients | [16] |
| Fungi | HIV+ patients vs. HIV- participants | HIV-positive individuals had greater overall fungal diversity | In HIV cases, Microsporum was elevated, while Cystobasidium and Rhodotorula were reduced compared to controls | [5] |
Gut viruses
Juvenile bacteriophages form a gut viral community [17]. A multitude of eukaryotic DNA and RNA viruses reside in the human gastrointestinal tract; nevertheless, bacteriophages are the dominating organisms [18]. It is believed that 83% to 95% of the body’s HIV-infected cells reside in the gastrointestinal tract, promoting the virus’s propagation throughout the body. Herpesviruses are not the only pathogens shown to survive in human intestines for prolonged periods [19]. This include eukaryotic adenoviruses, microviridae bacteriophages, and crAs-like viruses found in prokaryotes [20]. Similar research on gastrointestinal bacteria has shown that viruses may survive for a minimum of 10 years [21]. In the context of HIV, gastrointestinal viruses have garnered considerable interest. The gut viromes of most individuals show little fluctuation; however patients with inflammatory bowel disease or other chronic infectious illnesses may experience significant changes [20]. Recently, researchers investigated the processes behind the HIV gut virome. Investigators from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis identified several new viruses inside the gut microbiome of persons infected with HIV [19]. The researchers posited that alterations in the viral makeup of the intestines could correlate with the emergence of severe immunodeficiency in HIV patients [22, 23]. Patients with AIDS and consequent immunodeficiency have been associated with a higher prevalence of gastrointestinal viruses compared to those with strong immunological responses [19]. Mitigating the transmission of pathogenic bacteria and viruses in the intestines may reduce stress on the gastrointestinal tract and, consequently, the difficulties encountered by individuals with chronic HIV infection, as articulated by Edward Mallinckrodt. Adenoviruses , linked to AIDS and subsequent immunodeficiency, may cause illness due to their ability to proliferate as enteropathogens [19]. They also proposed that some viruses, such as adenoviruses, may specifically target certain organs [24]. t [25]. A novel virus, designated as a phage-type virus, is evolving, despite the potential harm viruses inflict on the cells they invade. These viruses not only infect bacteria but also live with them, and some generate genes that augment the lifespan of the host cells. Additional research is necessary to determine if gut viromes have advantageous or harmful impacts. The functions of gut microbiota are shown in Table 2 [16, 26].
Table 2.
Key functions of gut microbiota [27]
| Function Type | Main Roles |
|---|---|
| Neurological | Regulates both the enteric and central nervous systems by influencing neurotransmitter and neurotrophic factor production, turnover, and activity; helps preserve intestinal barrier and tight junction integrity; modulates sensory nerve pathways; microbial metabolites support immune balance in the gut |
| Metabolic | Breaks down dietary fibers through fermentation; produces short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs); participates in amino acid and protein metabolism; assists in bile salt conversion and nutrient processing |
| Structural | Maintains intestinal architecture by regulating tight junctions, supporting mucus layer function, promoting crypt and villus formation, and enhancing villi blood vessel development |
| Protective | Enhances nutritional uptake, strengthens intestinal barrier, stimulates immune responses, and promotes secretion of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) |
Gut microbiota in immune homeostasis
The gut microbiome acts as a key regulator of mucosal immunity and systemic homeostasis. A balanced microbiota competes with pathogens for ecological niches and stimulates the development of immune tissues [28]. Commensal organisms produce SCFAs (acetate, propionate, butyrate) by fermenting fiber; these metabolites reinforce tight junctions, serve as energy for colonocytes, and modulate immune cell function [29]. Moreover, IgA repertoire on gut is determined by microbial antigens and metabolites, which facilitate responses by antibodies against pathogens within the lumen [30]. Animals that do not harbor this microbiome (germ-free animals) are prone to infection, have poorly developed gut-associated lymphoid tissues, low intraepithelial lymphocytes, and IgA [31], emphasizing the symbiotic value of the intestinal flora. Infection early in HIV causes disruption of this symbiosis. Th17 and Th22 cells which regulate bacterial communities are rapidly depleted and CD4 + activated T cells which are activated in gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT) are the exclusive targets of infection by the virus [32]. The death of such cells results in malfunction of the microbial sensing and impaired epithelial barriers. As a result of this, the intestines become more permeable and luminal microbes or their products (e.g., lipopolysaccharide, LPS) find their way into the blood [33]. It results in systemic immune activation, increasing a process of inflammation, which contributes to another instability of the gut barrier and disrupts the microbiome. It is important to note that such effects are usually inhibited by the healthy microbiome: it controls the GALT homeostasis and prevents the microbial translocation and long-term immune activity [34]. This protective role is however lost when dysbiosis happens in case of HIV infection. Therefore, prevention or treatment of HIV-pathogenesis may be effective through the maintenance or replacement of a positive gut microbiota. It has been established that there are several specific pathways through which microbes or their products reverse HIV-related damage [35]. These are the strengthening of the epithelial integrity, regulation of the inflammatory processes and even the direct impact on the viral replication [36].
Mechanistic pathways of microbiome-mediated protection
Barrier integrity and microbial translocation
The key role of the gut microbiome is the maintenance of both the physical and immunologic protection of the intestinal mucosa [37]. Commensal bacteria stimulate mucus, tight junction proteins as well as maintenance of immune cells that block the barrier. As an example, Bifidobacteria, which are normal inhabitants of the intestines, have been demonstrated to shield the mucosal integrity: they are capable of inhibiting the development of epithelial defects and translocation of microbes [38]. This is not the case in HIV infection where the levels of Bifidobacteria tend to be depleted hence aiding in barrier leakiness. On the other hand, experimental evidence suggests that addition of good bacteria is assistive in restoration of gut barrier function. When Lactobacillus-containing probiotics were administered in the gut of SIV-infected macaques (a primate model of HIV), the gut epithelial cells were repaired [39], implicating that probiotic microbes have the potential to stimulate the process of mucosal healing despite additively changing the overall microbiota composition [40]. The gut microbial communities also control the optimal populations of important immune cells that protect the barrier. Th17 and IL-22-secreting cells (generated by innate lymphoid cells and Th22 cells) secrete the cytokines that promote epithelial cell turnover and release antimicrobial peptides [41]. Microbial metabolites particularly tryptophan-derived indoles used to stimulate IL-22 release by innate lymphocytes promote the barrier [42]. Producibility of these indole metabolites is compromised in the microbiota of progressive HIV infection. This loss can increase epithelial damage: lack of indole-AhR (aryl hydrocarbon receptor) signaling causes the weakening of IL-22 + cells and makes the epithelium more prone to the destruction and growth of opportunistic pathogens. Conversely, a healthy gut is facilitated to produce IL-22- inducing metabolites by microorganisms to aid mucosa defense [43]. These results suggest that there is a feedback mechanism in that HIV-mediated dysbiosis diminishes the microbial aid of the barrier, which enhances translocation and immune activation. On the other hand, a healthy microbiome containing Bifidobacteria, indole-forming bacteria ensures the health of epithelia and prevents translocation [44]. The aim of the microbiome-based therapies (diet, prebiotics, probiotics, FMT) is to restore this balance to the protective barrier [45].
Anti-inflammatory effects and immune modulation
Gut microbes also regulate inflammation. A dysbiotic microbiota in HIV often shows enrichment of pro-inflammatory Gram-negative bacteria (e.g. Prevotella, Proteobacteria) and depletion of anti-inflammatory taxa (e.g. Faecalibacterium, Roseburia) [46, 47]. These dysbiotic shifts are associated with elevated circulating LPS and inflammatory cytokines. In contrast, certain commensals produce metabolites that buffer inflammation [48]. For example, members of the Succinivibrionaceae and Erysipelotrichaceae families can “mop up” pro-inflammatory molecules and accumulate antiviral compounds [49]. In practice, higher abundance of Erysipelotrichaceae has been linked to lower HIV acquisition risk in a human genetic study, consistent with its anti-inflammatory reputation. Erysipelotrichaceae (and related taxa) may produce metabolites or secondary bile acids that dampen immune activation and perhaps directly inhibit HIV replication. Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) are among the key anti-inflammatory mediators derived from microbes [50]. Butyrate in particular plays a central role in regulating immune homeostasis in the gut. Butyrate provides energy to colonic epithelial cells, promotes regulatory T cell differentiation, and inhibits NF-κB–mediated inflammatory signaling. In treated and untreated HIV patients, many butyrate-producing Firmicutes (e.g. Roseburia, Coprococcus, Faecalibacterium) are consistently reduced [50]. This loss correlates with lower fecal butyrate levels and with higher markers of immune activation. Notably, in HIV-infected individuals, levels of the butyrate producer Roseburia intestinalis inversely correlate with microbial translocation and immune activation. In vitro, adding butyrate to peripheral blood T cells from people with HIV suppresses their activation and reduces HIV replication [51]. Thus, depletion of SCFA-producing microbes removes a key anti-inflammatory brake in HIV [52]. Restoring these taxa (for example via dietary fiber or fecal transplant) could enhance colonic production of butyrate and related SCFAs, thereby reducing inflammation [53]. Other microbial metabolites also exert systemic immunomodulatory effects. Microbiota-derived kynurenine (a tryptophan catabolite) is elevated in HIV and is immunosuppressive: high kynurenine/tryptophan ratios in plasma predict poor CD4 recovery and vascular inflammation [54]. Bacteria that can catabolize tryptophan via indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase–like enzymes are enriched in HIV patients. Increased kynurenine skews the Th17/Treg balance toward regulation and impairs mucosal immunity [55]. Conversely, pathways that shunt tryptophan into anti-inflammatory indoles (e.g. indole-3-propionate) rather than kynurenine would be protective [56]. Microbiome-targeted interventions (such as probiotics) might be designed to favor indole production, thus supporting IL-22^+ cells and limiting Th17 loss. Overall, by modulating systemic cytokine levels, T cell polarization, and innate immune signaling, the microbiome shapes the environment in which HIV must replicate [57]. A community rich in anti-inflammatory metabolites and regulatory cues should in principle limit the CD4^+ T cell activation and turnover that fuel HIV expansion as shown in Fig. 1 [58].
Fig. 1.
Illustration of HIV-induced gut dysbiosis and barrier dysfunction. HIV infection causes bacterial overgrowth, epithelial barrier disruption, and reduced antimicrobial peptide (AMP) production, leading to microbial translocation and chronic inflammation. These changes drive CD4⁺ T cell depletion, enhanced viral replication, and progression from healthy gut to AIDS
Direct antiviral effects of microbiome-derived factors
Beyond shaping immunity, some microbiota-derived substances may have direct anti-HIV activity. For example, lactic acid produced by lactobacilli has been shown in vitro to inactivate viruses [59]. Although most studies have focused on vaginal lactobacilli and HIV, similar principles may apply in the gut: a low pH and bacteriocin production by commensal bacteria can create an environment hostile to pathogens [60]. In line with this, the increase of bacteria that “accumulate antiviral compounds” suggests that certain taxa may secrete small molecules or peptides that inhibit viral replication. Experimental data support this idea: as noted, exogenous butyrate directly reduced HIV replication in cell culture [61]. It is plausible that other SCFAs or tryptophan metabolites similarly alter host cell susceptibility to HIV or interfere with viral transcription. In addition, the IgA antibodies whose repertoire is shaped by the gut microbiota may neutralize HIV virions in the gut lumen, preventing further infection of target cells. the gut microbiome contributes to defense against HIV by (1) maintaining the epithelial barrier and preventing microbial translocation, (2) producing anti-inflammatory metabolites (SCFAs, indoles, etc.) that regulate immune activation, (3) supporting protective T cell subsets (Th17/Th22) and innate lymphoid cells, and (4) potentially generating direct antiviral factors that limit HIV replication [62]. Disruption of these mechanisms by dysbiosis may explain why HIV infection often leads to unchecked inflammation [63]. Therefore, interventions aimed at bolstering the “protective” microbiome functions could reduce HIV susceptibility or disease severity. The gut microbiota in HIV infected are shown in Table 3 [64].
Table 3.
Outlines recent evidence on gut microbiota composition across various HIV-infected groups
| Gut Microbiota | Study Group/Comparison | Diversity | Abundance (Main Findings) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacteria | Sero-converters (SC) before HIV-1 infection vs. HIV-1 negative controls (NC) | — | SC before infection: Families Succinivibrionaceae, S24-7, Mogibacteriaceae, Coriobacteriaceae | [12] |
| Bacteria (MSM) | (1) SC with HIV-1 progressing to AIDS within 5 years vs. (2) SC remaining AIDS-free > 10 years without ART | — | Group 1: Family Prevotellaceae, Victivallaceae increased; Species Bacteroides fragilis, Eubacterium cylindroides enriched | [12] |
| Bacteria (Maternal & Infant) | Mothers with HIV vs. HIV-negative mothers | No major differences | HIV+ mothers: Reduced Lactobacillus | [13] |
| Bacteria (Unspecified group) | High viremia vs. viral suppression | — | High viremia: Ruminococcus 2, Succinivibrio increased. Viral suppression: Intestinibacter decreased | [11] |
| Before vs. after ART (longitudinal analysis) | No significant changes | No significant changes | [11] | |
| Immunological responders (IR) vs. non-responders (INR) | — | IRs: Faecalibacterium reduced; Alistipes increased | — | |
| HIV + vs. HIV- individuals | HIV+ showed reduced diversity | HIV+: At phylum level → Fusobacteria higher, Firmicutes lower. At genus level → Fusobacterium, Prevotella 9 enriched, while Faecalibacterium, Alistipes, Akkermansia, Ruminococcaceae UCG-014 depleted | [5] |
Microbiome composition and HIV susceptibility
Observational studies have identified specific bacterial signatures that correlate with HIV susceptibility and progression [12]. In one prospective analysis of men who have sex with men (MSM), individuals who later acquired HIV (“seroconverters”) already had higher gut abundances of taxa such as Succinivibrionaceae, Coriobacteriaceae, and Erysipelotrichaceae, and lower levels of Bacteroidaceae, Akkermansia, and certain Bacteroides species, compared to HIV-negative controls [65]. These alterations were present months before infection and were accompanied by elevated plasma levels of sCD14, sCD163, IL-6, and LPS-binding protein (markers of microbial translocation and immune activation) [66]. This suggests that pre-existing gut dysbiosis, even in the absence of HIV, may increase the likelihood of viral acquisition by creating a pro-inflammatory milieu [66, 67]. A separate Mendelian randomization study used human genetics to infer causality and found that certain gut families (e.g. Ruminococcaceae, Subdoligranulum) were associated with higher HIV risk, whereas Erysipelotrichaceae and Methanobrevibacter appeared protective [68]. While MR analysis cannot reveal mechanisms, it supports the idea that microbiome composition influences HIV susceptibility. Together, these data suggest that a microbiome that is both abundant in Bacteroidaceae (e.g. Bacteroides fragilis), Akkermansia and butyrate producers may help prevent infection, whereas a microbiome dominated by pro-inflammatory taxa (Prevotella, Proteobacteria, etc.) could be the predisposing factor to infection [69]. The underlying causative relationships are still under study, but the patterns are in line with established interactions of the microbiome and immune system: e.g. Bacteroides fragilis has the potential to stimulate regulatory T cells through its polysaccharide A, which reduces inflammation and Prevotella is capable of stimulating IL-17 and IL-17 stimulation. Therefore, the differences in microbial composition are reflected as specific states of immune [70, 71].
Microbiome‑associated determinants of HIV acquisition
HIV and SIV produce extreme depletion of gut CD4 + T cells, particularly those that produce critical cytokines IL-17 and IL-22 that are obligatory to preserve gut barrier competence and enlist protective immune cells [72]. This loss compromises the structural and immunological capabilities of the intestinal mucosa, causing more microbial translocation and inflammation. These alterations are also connected with changes in the composition of gut microbiomes, which indicates a two-way interaction between dysbiosis and immune dysfunction in HIV/SIV [73].
Recent evidence suggests that the makeup of the microbiome can affect HIV infection. Vaginal microbiomes that are not dominated by Lactobacillus species increase women’s risk of contracting HIV, and in men who have sex with men (MSM), certain gut microbial signatures, such as Prevotella dominance, are linked with increased risk of HIV. Longitudinal studies indicate that those who eventually seroconvert have unique microbiome characteristics and increased systemic inflammation before infection. There is further experimental animal evidence that antibiotic-induced dysbiosis predisposes rectal SIV, although this is apparently caused more by dysbiosis-induced changes in mucosal immunity than by individual microbial taxa [74]. Therefore, the host immune responses that are influenced by the microbiome, and not individual bacteria themselves, might mediate susceptibility to HIV infection [75].
Microbiome-based interventions
Given the microbiome’s influence on HIV pathogenesis, a number of interventions have been tested to manipulate gut flora and its metabolic output [76]. These include probiotics (live microbial supplements), prebiotics (non-digestible substrates that feed beneficial microbes), synbiotics (combinations of both), and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) [77]. A conceptual framework shows that these strategies seek to enrich “protective” taxa and functions, for example, boosting SCFA production or replenishing depleted genera as shown in Fig. 2 [78].
Fig. 2.
Schematic representation of gut–liver axis involvement in fibrosis during HIV infection. HIV impairs the gut epithelial barrier, allowing translocation of microbiome products into the portal system. These microbial products reach the liver via the portal vein, where they activate toll-like receptors (TLRs) on hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) and Kupffer cells, triggering inflammation, hepatocyte injury, and progression to fibrosis
Probiotics and synbiotics
Probiotics are the most widely studied microbial therapies in HIV. Common formulations include Lactobacillus spp., Bifidobacterium spp., or the yeast Saccharomyces boulardii. Early uncontrolled studies hinted that probiotics could reduce gut permeability and improve CD4 recovery [79]. For instance, an RCT in Spain found that 12-week supplementation with S. boulardii in ART-treated patients significantly lowered plasma markers of microbial translocation (lipopolysaccharide-binding protein, LBP) and inflammation (IL-6) compared to placebo [80]. These results indicate that probiotics have the potential to partially reinstate gut barrier functioning as well as attenuate systemic immune activation. A second North American trial (Visbiome study) demonstrated that high-potency probiotic mixture in a very mild decrease Gammaproteobacteria levels but no improvement of crucial markers of inflammation. Even these promising signs do not make bigger controlled studies any less disappointing [79, 81]. The PROMALTIA trial gave a synbiotic cocktail (prebiotic oligofructose plus S. boulardii and omega-3s) to patients starting ART with advanced disease; after 12 weeks there was no added benefit on CD4 recovery or gut integrity beyond ART alone [82]. Pooled with other studies, it was also noted in the PROOV-IT study that there was no effect on Visbiome (Lactobacilli/Bifidobacteria mix) on immunologic outcomes in immunologically non-responding individuals on suppressive ART [82]. These mixed results reflect several challenges. Conventional probiotics often fail to stably engraft in the gut and typically do not alter the resident microbiota composition long-term. Indeed, most studies saw only transient shifts in taxa after probiotic use [83]. In addition, the strains and doses used vary widely across studies, making it hard to draw firm conclusions [84]. Overall, current evidence does not support routine use of existing probiotic products to control inflammation or enhance immune recovery in HIV. Nonetheless, the concept remains promising: more recent efforts focus on next-generation probiotics or live biotherapeutic products (LBPs) – defined consortia or engineered strains derived from healthy gut microbiota – that are tailored to precise immunologic goals [84, 85]. Such products, once developed, may provide more robust and durable colonization, and could be administered alone or in combination with dietary therapies [86].
Prebiotics and dietary modulation
Prebiotics are fermentable fibers or oligosaccharides that selectively stimulate beneficial bacteria. By enhancing the growth of SCFA-producers (e.g. Faecalibacterium, Lachnospira) and Bifidobacteria, prebiotics can increase production of butyrate and other protective metabolites. In one study of ART-treated patients receiving prebiotic supplements, the abundance of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii (a major butyrate producer) rose, correlating strongly with fecal butyrate levels [86, 87]. Such increases in butyrate-producers are associated with improved gut barrier markers. However, as with probiotics, clinical trials of prebiotics in HIV have been limited and varied; many small studies have found only partial or inconsistent improvements in dysbiosis or inflammation [88]. Dietary interventions more broadly have been explored. A Mediterranean-style diet (rich in fiber, polyphenols, and healthy fats) was tested in a randomized trial of HIV patients, with results showing increases in beneficial bacteria and reduced markers of immune activation (though the trial was small) [89]. In general, diets high in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains tend to promote gut diversity and SCFA production, whereas Western diets (high fat/sugar) can exacerbate dysbiosis [73]. Thus, nutritional guidance is often suggested as a supportive therapy for people with HIV, although definitive evidence of reduced HIV risk is lacking [90].
Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT)
FMT involves transfer of a whole microbial community from a healthy donor into the patient’s gut. It has been remarkably effective for Clostridioides difficile infection, and it is being investigated for HIV [91]. The logic is that FMT could replace a dysbiotic microbiota with a diverse, resilient one that restores protective functions. In animal models of HIV (SIV-infected macaques), experimental FMT has shown intriguing benefits [92]. A single study showed that antibiotic conditioning and thereafter FMT upsurged the frequency of IL-17 and IF 22-producing lymphocytes in the intestine and lowered the activation of CD4 T cells, whereas there was scanty clinical SIV marker alterations [93]. These results indicate that despite having no effect on the level of the viral load, FMT is able to promote mucosal immunity and possibly enhance the barrier. There is early and positive evidence of FMT in HIV trials on humans. Small pilot studies in ART-treated patients (all virologically suppressed) have demonstrated that repeated FMT (via colonoscopy or oral capsules) is safe and can transiently increase gut microbial diversity and donor strains. For example, a weekly oral FMT regimen over 8 weeks led to significant engraftment of butyrate-producing taxa and a drop in intestinal fatty acid–binding protein (IFABP, a marker of gut epithelial damage) [91]. These changes hint at reduced gut injury and inflammation. The effects, however, often wane over months unless the patient receives multiple or high-dose FMTs [94, 95]. Not all subjects respond equally – those with very low diversity at baseline tend to show greater donor engraftment, – suggesting patient selection will be important. Importantly, no safety signals (beyond mild GI symptoms) have emerged in HIV FMT trials to date, but systematic studies are needed [92]. Given the complexity of HIV-associated dysbiosis, FMT may be more effective when combined with other therapies (e.g. temporary antibiotics or prebiotics) to help the donor microbes establish. Future trials are aiming to determine if FMT can sustainably reduce systemic inflammation or improve immune reconstitution in HIV [85].
Postbiotics and next-generation therapeutics
Beyond whole microbes, interest is growing in postbiotics (microbial metabolites or components) and tailored live biotherapeutic products. For example, given the importance of butyrate, researchers have considered directly supplementing this SCFA or its precursors [96]. In SIV macaques on ART, oral tributyrin (a prodrug of butyrate) was tested but showed only minimal effect on residual inflammation [97]. One reason may be rapid absorption or metabolic conversion before reaching the colon [98]. Another approach is to administer butyrate-producing bacteria (next-generation probiotics) in high numbers. Indeed, patients with HIV have notably lower levels of Roseburia intestinalis and other butyrate-producers, which correlates with higher immune activation. In vitro, adding butyrate to immune cells from such patients reduced HIV replication, underscoring its regulatory potential [99]. Thus, delivering either the metabolite or its microbial producers is an appealing strategy. Other candidate postbiotics include indole-3-propionate and other AhR ligands derived from tryptophan metabolism, which could promote IL-22 production and barrier defense [83]. Formulations of bacterially derived peptides or polysaccharides (similar to Bacteroides fragilis PSA) might be explored to bias the immune response. Advances in synthetic biology now allow design of LBPs: defined cocktails of gut bacteria engineered to perform specific functions (for example, secrete anti-inflammatory cytokines or HIV-binding proteins) [100]. These approaches are at an early stage in HIV research, but analogous products have been developed for other conditions [101]. In all these interventions, the ultimate goal is to restore the biochemical and immunologic environment of a healthy gut – abundant SCFAs, intact mucus/IgA layer, regulatory immune tone, which should make the host more resistant to HIV [102].
Current limitations and future directions
Despite promising concepts, the field faces significant limitations. Most human studies to date are cross-sectional or small trials; causality is hard to prove. Observational microbiome surveys are confounded by many variables: diet, geography, sexual behavior, ART regimen, co-infections, and more [89]. For instance, many reported shifts (e.g. Prevotella enrichment) reflect lifestyle or cohort differences rather than HIV per se. Even sophisticated analyses have sometimes found only subtle microbiome differences when controlling for confounders [93]. Mechanistic studies in humans are few as shown in Table 4.
Table 4.
Summarizes the major barriers in microbiome-HIV research, outlining specific challenges and potential strategies to overcome them
| Research Barrier | Specific Challenge | Proposed Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Complexity of microbial interactions | Hard to distinguish causation from correlation in microbial relationships | Foster multidisciplinary research using advanced computational modeling combined with experimental verification |
| Incomplete definition of a healthy microbiota | No clear agreement on what constitutes a “healthy” microbiome, with wide variation across populations | Establish standardized criteria for microbiome studies through international collaborations |
| Individual variability in microbiome | Differences among individuals make standardization difficult | Emphasize personalized approaches and conduct large-scale population-based studies |
| Confounding effects of sexual practices | Difficult to separate HIV-related effects from those linked to sexual behavior | Design controlled studies that specifically assess the influence of sexual practices |
| Confounding effects of geographical and dietary factors | Regional and dietary diversity complicates generalization of results | Incorporate cross-cultural comparisons and diverse dietary backgrounds in research |
| Interactions with ART | Antiretroviral therapy affects the microbiome differently depending on regimen | Carry out systematic studies on ART–microbiome relationships with standardized treatment protocols |
| Limited longitudinal data | Lack of long-term monitoring hampers evaluation of safety and effectiveness | Implement long-term study frameworks with extended follow-up after treatment |
| Ethical and clinical trial constraints in tissue studies | Invasive sampling raises ethical and logistical challenges | Develop innovative, noninvasive methods to study microbial activity in tissues |
| Lack of standardized methodologies | Variations in techniques hinder consistency, especially in proteomics and metabolomics | Create universal research protocols supported by collaborative method development |
| Technological and analytical challenges | Current tools have limitations in capturing the microbiome complexity, and data analysis is difficult | Invest in cutting-edge technologies and strengthen collaborations with computational scientists |
| Generalizability of findings | Microbiome variation makes it difficult to apply results across populations | Conduct multicenter studies with participants from diverse backgrounds |
| Interdisciplinary integration | Coordinating across different fields can be challenging | Build structured interdisciplinary programs and shared collaborative platforms |
| Funding and resource allocation | Insufficient financial support and competing priorities | Promote stronger advocacy for funding and diversify sources of financial support |
It highlights methodological, biological, and ethical constraints, along with proposed solutions for advancing future studies
It is difficult to directly observe the impact of specific bacterial functions on HIV outcomes. Animal models (SIV-infected macaques) have been informative but do not fully replicate human HIV infection and microbiome diversity [103]. Gnotobiotic mouse models or in vitro gut-on-a-chip systems may help dissect cause–effect but lack certain human immunological components. Intervention trials have been heterogeneous. Probiotics and prebiotics come in many formulations, making comparisons hard [104, 105]. FMT studies have only enrolled a handful of patients; the optimal dosing regimen and donor selection remain unresolved. On the mechanistic front, key questions persist. Exactly which microbial metabolites are most critical [105], While SCFAs and indoles have been implicated, many other pathways are unexplored (e.g. bile acid metabolism, peptidoglycan sensing, fungal/viral components of the microbiome). The role of non-bacterial microbiome (fungi, bacteriophages) in HIV defense is virtually unknown. Furthermore, individual responses to microbiome-targeted therapies vary: host genetics, immune status, and baseline microbiome all influence engraftment and effect [106].
Future research must address these gaps. Large longitudinal cohort studies are needed to track the microbiome from HIV exposure through infection and treatment, to identify causal microbiota–HIV links. Metagenomic and metabolomic profiling should be combined with immune phenotyping to pinpoint protective versus harmful functions [107]. The development of multi-omics and machine learning can show microbial fingerprints indicating susceptibility or response to treatment. Interventional trials are supposed to shift to a rational design. Human microbiome information should also inform next-generation probiotics (LBPs): e.g., HIV-uninfected individuals strains that are best at mucosal immunomodulation [108]. Attention is being given to design of defined microbial consortia (cocktails of cultured human symbionts) and no single ones. Individualized treatment (adoption of donor stool that suits the patient in FMT, or customization of prebiotics according to the diet) can enhance uniformity [109]. Purified butyrate analogs (e.g. indole derivatives) and postbiotic therapies, which would avoid the variability of live microbes, would need careful dosing studies. Lastly, human clinical trials need to strictly evaluate the outcomes that extend the microbiome composition: gut permeability tests, immune activation consortia, viral store size, etc [110]. It will be essential to identify whether or not interventions with microbiomes have the potential to really change the trajectory of HIV, such as by seeding reservoirs during acute infection or improving ART immune restoration. It is only through that kind of mechanistic and clinical research that the potential of microbiome in terms of HIV defense is achieved to the fullest [111]. There is an increasing literature on the active role of the gut microbiome in the defense against HIV in its host. A healthy microbiome can reduce HIV pathogenesis by promoting intestinal barrier integrity, immune activation regulation, and antiviral metabolic synthesis [112]. Microbiome-based treatments (probiotics, prebiotics, FMT, etc.) have the potential to supplement these natural defenses. Nonetheless, existing data are still primitive and, at times, inconsistent, which is why more systematic, mechanistic researches are necessary. This next step will be achieved through combined efforts across microbiology, immunology, and clinical HIV research to come up with validated microbiome-targeted HIV prevention and treatment strategies [74, 113, 114].
Conclusion
The last ten years have brought a lot of enlightenment on the role of the gut microbiome in the HIV infections that the paradigm has shifted the outlook and instead of looking at the microbiota as a bystander, it is being considered as an active member of the immune system. Diverse and balanced microbiome allows the maintenance of integrity of the barrier, regulation of inflammation, and direct antiviral activity, thus providing a less favorable environment to HIV infection and the progression of the disease. On the other hand, dysbiosis and depletion of useful metabolites enhance immune response and contribute to the maintenance of viruses. Although the use of microbiomes as disease-modifying interventions (e.g. probiotics, prebiotics, FMT, etc.) were demonstrating promise, their clinical effectiveness remained low due to inconsistency of effects and methodological concerns. In the future, studies should focus on the mechanistic understanding, rational structure of the microbial consortia and metabolomic and immunologic data combination to design interventions. The gut microbiome has potential to become a therapeutic focus together with antiretroviral therapy, as well as treating the enduring problems of immune activation, reservoir maintenance, and long-term health in HIV-positive people, through the careful design of studies that enable it to be a therapeutic focus. The gastrointestinal tract is a complex microbiome with metabolic and immunologic activities being essential to the well-being of the host. In a healthy person, the intestinal microbiota (or about 10 14 organisms representing hundreds of species) has a complex set of functions, including the metabolic assistance of the intestinal mucosal surface and fine-tuning of the immune system. As an illustration, commensal bacteria break down dietary fibers into short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) that provide energy to enterocytes and provide a signal to immune cells, and plasma cells present in the gut secrete IgA which combats luminal microbes and viruses. These host microbiome relations contribute to the sustenance of the integrity of the gut barrier and regulated mucosal immune setting. The infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection significantly disrupts this system: HIV quickly infects (GALT), eliminates CD4. + T cells (particularly Th17/Th22 varieties) and makes the mucosa damage and translocate microbes. The outcome is persistent systemic inflammation as well as immune activation, which enhances disease development. There is mounting evidence that a healthy gut microbiome may neutralize such outcomes and an HIV susceptibility/pathogenesis, through multiple mechanistic routes. The review will first consider the most recent evidence (within the last 5–10 years) of the ability of gut microbes to protect against HIV in humans, and then consider interventions, probiotics, prebiotics, dietary modification, and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) intervention designed to harness these effects. We also address the existing constraints as well as the future research initiatives in this nascent area.
Acknowledgements
The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Research and Graduate Studies at King Khalid University for funding this work through Large Research Project under grant number RGP2/497/46.
Author contributions
A.Z. wrote the text and performed the formal analysis; N.A. and M.Y.S. curated the data. A.M.A. handled the conceptualization and writing edits.
Funding
This study was funded by the Deanship of Research and Graduate Studies at King Khalid University through Large Research Project under grant number RGP2/497/46.
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Yin Y, et al. Characterization of the intestinal fungal microbiome in HIV and HCV mono-infected or co-infected patients. Viruses. 2022 Aug 18;14(8):1811. 10.3390/v14081811. PMID: 36016433;PMCID: PMC9412373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Mizutani T, et al. Role of microbiota in viral infections and pathological progression. Viruses. 2022 May 1;14(5):950. 10.3390/v14050950. PMID: 35632692; PMCID: PMC9144409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Dong R, et al. Effects of docosahexanoic acid on gut microbiota and fecal metabolites in HIV-Infected patients with neurocognitive impairment: A 6-Month Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled trial. Front Nutr. 2021;8:756720. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hsieh HS, et al. Gut Microbiome profiles and associated metabolic pathways in patients of adult-onset immunodeficiency with anti-interferon-gamma autoantibodies. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):9126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Wu X, et al. Gut dysbiosis of bacteria and fungi associated with human immunodeficiency virus infection. Chin Med J (Engl). 2022;135(11):1376–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ashuro AA, et al. Review on the alteration of gut microbiota: the role of HIV infection and old age. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2020;36(7):556–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Nguyen QT, et al. Alterations in children’s sub-dominant gut microbiota by HIV infection and anti-retroviral therapy. PLoS One. 2021;16(10):e0258226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Pandrea I, et al. I’ve looked at gut from both sides now: Gastrointestinal tract involvement in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 and HIV/SIV infections. Front Immunol. 2022;13:899559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Ouyang J, et al. Microbiota-Meditated immunity abnormalities facilitate hepatitis B virus Co-Infection in people living with HIV: A review. Front Immunol. 2021;12:755890. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Jayanama K, et al. Association between gut microbiota and prediabetes in people living with HIV. Curr Res Microb Sci. 2022;3:100143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Russo E, et al. Effects of viremia and CD4 recovery on gut microbiome-immunity axis in treatment-naïve HIV-1-infected patients undergoing antiretroviral therapy. World J Gastroenterol. 2022;28(6):635–52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Chen Y, et al. Signature changes in gut Microbiome are associated with increased susceptibility to HIV-1 infection in MSM. Microbiome. 2021;9(1):237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Grant-Beurmann S, et al. Dynamics of the infant gut microbiota in the first 18 months of life: the impact of maternal HIV infection and breastfeeding. Microbiome. 2022;10(1):61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Lamps LW, Lai KK, Milner DA Jr. Fungal infections of the Gastrointestinal tract in the immunocompromised host: an update. Adv Anat Pathol. 2014;21(4):217–27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Hallen-Adams HE, Suhr MJ. Fungi in the healthy human gastrointestinal tract. Virulence. 2017;8(3):352–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Gosalbes MJ, et al. Interactions among the mycobiome, bacteriome, inflammation, and diet in people living with HIV. Gut Microbes. 2022;14(1):2089002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Neurath MF, Überla K, Ng SC. Gut as viral reservoir: lessons from gut viromes, HIV and COVID-19. Gut. 2021;70(9):1605–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Cao Z, et al. The gut virome: A new Microbiome component in health and disease. EBioMedicine. 2022;81:104113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Monaco CL. HIV, AIDS, and the virome: gut reactions. Cell Host Microbe. 2022;30(4):466–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Monaco CL, et al. Altered Virome and bacterial Microbiome in human immunodeficiency Virus-Associated acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Cell Host Microbe. 2016;19(3):311–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Halaweish HF, Boatman S, Staley C. Encapsulated fecal microbiota transplantation: Development, Efficacy, and clinical application. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:826114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Zubair A, et al. Unlocking the role of transcription activator-like effector nuclease (TALENs) and zinc finger nuclease (ZFN) in the treatment of HIV. Mol Biol Rep. 2025;52(1):948. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Hassan HM, et al. New hope and promise with CRISPR-Cas9 technology for the treatment of HIV. Funct Integr Genom. 2025;25(1):108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Zubair A, et al. Unveiling the dynamics: Understanding the current scenario and drivers of HIV epidemiology in Pakistan. Retrovirology. 2025;22(1):12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Wen JH, et al. Macrophage autophagy in macrophage polarization, chronic inflammation and organ fibrosis. Front Immunol. 2022;13:946832. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Borgognone A, et al. Gut Microbiome signatures linked to HIV-1 reservoir size and viremia control. Microbiome. 2022;10(1):59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Wu Z, et al. HIV and the gut microbiome: future research hotspots and trends. Front Microbiol. 2025;16:1466419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Wang J, et al. Gut-microbiota-derived metabolites maintain gut and systemic immune homeostasis. Cells. 2023 Mar 2;12(5):793. 10.3390/cells12050793. PMID:36899929; PMCID: PMC10000530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Kaur H, Ali SA. Probiotics and gut microbiota: mechanistic insights into gut immune homeostasis through TLR pathway regulation. Food Funct. 2022;13(14):7423–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Toor D, et al. Dysbiosis disrupts gut immune homeostasis and promotes gastric diseases. Int J Mol Sci. 2019 May 16;20(10):2432. 10.3390/ijms20102432. PMID: 31100929; PMCID: PMC6567003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Sun Z, et al. Gut Microbiome alterations and gut barrier dysfunction are associated with host immune homeostasis in COVID-19 patients. BMC Med. 2022;20(1):24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Dicks LMT, et al. Our gut microbiota: a long walk to homeostasis. Benef Microbes. 2018;9(1):3–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Yoo JY et al. Gut microbiota and immune system interactions. Microorganisms, 2020. 8(10). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 34.Lee JY, Tsolis RM, Bäumler AJ. The microbiome and gut homeostasis. Science. Epub 2022 Jul 1. PMID: 35771903. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Kunst C, et al. The influence of gut microbiota on oxidative stress and the immune system. Biomedicines. 2023 May8;11(5):1388. 10.3390/biomedicines11051388. PMID: 37239059; PMCID: PMC10216031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Man SM. Inflammasomes in the gastrointestinal tract: infection, cancer and gut microbiota homeostasis. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;15(12):721–37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Ogden HB, et al. Reliability of gastrointestinal barrier integrity and microbial translocation biomarkers at rest and following exertional heat stress. Physiol Rep. 2020;8(5):e14374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Allert S, et al. Candida albicans-induced epithelial damage mediates translocation through intestinal barriers. MBio. 2018 Jun 5;9(3):e00915-18. 10.1128/mBio.00915-18. PMID:29871918; PMCID: PMC5989070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Shu LZ, et al. Direct and indirect effects of pathogenic bacteria on the integrity of intestinal barrier. Th Adv Gastroenterol. 2023;16:17562848231176427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Shivakoti R, et al. Intestinal barrier dysfunction and microbial translocation in human immunodeficiency Virus-Infected pregnant women are associated with preterm birth. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67(7):1103–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Wang YH. Current progress of research on intestinal bacterial translocation. Microb Pathog. 2021;152:104652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Ghosh SS, et al. Intestinal barrier Dysfunction, LPS Translocation, and disease development. J Endocr Soc. 2020;4(2):bvz039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Panwar S, Sharma S, Tripathi P. Role of barrier integrity and dysfunctions in maintaining the healthy gut and their health outcomes. Front Physiol. 2021;12:715611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Ouyang J, et al. Relevance of biomarkers indicating gut damage and microbial translocation in people living with HIV. Front Immunol. 2023;14:1173956. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.de Jongh CA, et al. Mechanisms of Porphyromonas gingivalis to translocate over the oral mucosa and other tissue barriers. J Oral Microbiol. 2023;15(1):2205291. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Yahfoufi N, et al. The immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory role of polyphenols. Nutrients. 2018 Nov 2;10(11):1618. 10.3390/nu10111618. PMID:30400131; PMCID: PMC6266803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Bagheri S, Zolghadri S, Stanek A. Beneficial effects of anti-inflammatory diet in modulating gut microbiota and controlling obesity. Nutrients. 2022. 10.3390/nu14193985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Al Bander Z, et al. The gut microbiota and inflammation: an overview. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Oct 19;17(20):7618. 10.3390/ijerph17207618. PMID: 33086688; PMCID: PMC7589951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Amoroso C, et al. The role of gut microbiota biomodulators on mucosal immunity and intestinal inflammation. Cells. 2020 May16;9(5):1234. 10.3390/cells9051234. PMID: 32429359; PMCID: PMC7291275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Lin TL, et al. Like cures like: Pharmacological activity of Anti-Inflammatory lipopolysaccharides from gut Microbiome. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Li M, et al. Pro- and anti-inflammatory effects of short chain fatty acids on immune and endothelial cells. Eur J Pharmacol. 2018;831:52–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Zubair A, et al. Molecular assessment of the HIV pol gene and use of computational vaccine design targeting Pakistani isolates. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):43984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Liu Y, Wang J, Wu C. Modulation of gut microbiota and immune system by Probiotics, Pre-biotics, and Post-biotics. Front Nutr. 2021;8:634897. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Peng Y, et al. Gut microbiota modulation and anti-inflammatory properties of anthocyanins from the fruits of lycium ruthenicum Murray in dextran sodium sulfate-induced colitis in mice. Free Radic Biol Med. 2019;136:96–108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Blanco-Pérez F, et al. The dietary fiber pectin: health benefits and potential for the treatment of allergies by modulation of gut microbiota. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2021;21(10):43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Rodríguez-Nogales A, et al. Intestinal anti-inflammatory effect of the probiotic Saccharomyces boulardii in DSS-induced colitis in mice: impact on MicroRNAs expression and gut microbiota composition. J Nutr Biochem. 2018;61:129–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Hu S, et al. Anti-inflammation effects of fucosylated chondroitin sulphate from acaudina molpadioides by altering gut microbiota in obese mice. Food Funct. 2019;10(3):1736–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Azad MAK, et al. Probiotic species in the modulation of gut microbiota: an overview. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:p9478630. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Hsu YC, et al. Compositions of gut microbiota before and shortly after hepatitis C viral eradication by direct antiviral agents. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):5481. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Han Z, et al. Therapeutic approach targeting gut microbiome in gastrointestinal infectious diseases. Int J Mol Sci. 2023 Oct 27;24(21):15654. 10.3390/ijms242115654. PMID: 37958637; PMCID: PMC10650060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Eladwy RA, et al. The fight against the carcinogenic Epstein-Barr virus: gut microbiota, natural medicines, and beyond. Int J Mol Sci. 2023 Jan15;24(2):1716. 10.3390/ijms24021716. PMID: 36675232; PMCID: PMC9862477. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Li H, Liu Y, Lai MY. Intestinal flora of hepatitis C after direct antiviral drug therapy: A review. Med (Baltim). 2025;104(31):e42301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Zubair A, Ali M, Hessien MM. Computer-Aided algorithmic approaches to drug development for Multi-Mutant HIV-1 reverse transcriptase. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev. 2026;15(1):e1585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Wang G, et al. Ginsenoside Rg3 enriches SCFA-producing commensal bacteria to confer protection against enteric viral infection via the cGAS-STING-type I IFN axis. Isme J. 2023;17(12):2426–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Abdool Karim SS, et al. The genital tract and rectal microbiomes: their role in HIV susceptibility and prevention in women. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019;22(5):e25300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Williams JC, et al. Soluble CD14, CD163, and CD27 biomarkers distinguish ART-suppressed youth living with HIV from healthy controls. J Leukoc Biol. 2018;103(4):671–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Mtshali A, et al. HIV susceptibility in women: the roles of genital inflammation, sexually transmitted infections and the genital Microbiome. J Reprod Immunol. 2021;145:103291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Wessels JM, et al. The relationship between sex hormones, the vaginal microbiome and immunity in HIV-1 susceptibility in women. Dis Model Mech. 2018Aug 28;11(9):dmm035147. 10.1242/dmm.035147. PMID: 30154116; PMCID: PMC6177003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Chandiwana P, et al. Antenatal gut Microbiome profiles and effect on pregnancy outcome in HIV infected and HIV uninfected women in a resource limited setting. BMC Microbiol. 2023;23(1):4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Eastment MC, McClelland RS. Vaginal microbiota and susceptibility to HIV. AIDS. 2018;32(6):687–98. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Rubio Garcia E, et al. Gut resistome linked to sexual preference and HIV infection. BMC Microbiol. 2024;24(1):201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Zubair A, Ali M, Akhtar N. HIV-1 nef gene characterization and subtype analysis in Pakistan: a molecular docking approach with mastoparan-L peptide. Int J Pept Res Ther. 2025;31(3):46. [Google Scholar]
- 73.Brenchley JM, Serrano-Villar S. From dysbiosis to defense: Harnessing the gut Microbiome in HIV/SIV therapy. Microbiome. 2024;12(1):113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Zubair A, et al. Molecular characterization and drug resistance pattern in pol gene of HIV-1 sub-subtypes Circulating in Lahore, Pakistan. Virus Genes. 2025;61(3):324–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Ortiz AM, Brenchley JM. Untangling the role of the microbiome across the stages of HIV disease. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2024;19(5):221–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Lacunza E, et al. Oral and anal Microbiome from HIV-exposed individuals: role of host-associated factors in taxa composition and metabolic pathways. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2023;9(1):48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Armstrong AJS, et al. An exploration of Prevotella-rich microbiomes in HIV and men who have sex with men. Microbiome. 2018;6(1):198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Littlefield KM, et al. Elevated inflammatory fecal immune factors in men who have sex with men with HIV associate with Microbiome composition and gut barrier function. Front Immunol. 2022;13:1072720. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Fu YS, et al. The effect of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on CD4 counts in HIV-infected patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:7947342. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Villar-García J, et al. Impact of probiotic Saccharomyces boulardii on the gut microbiome composition in HIV-treated patients: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0173802. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Presti RM, et al. A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled trial assessing the effect of VISBIOME ES probiotic in people with HIV on antiretroviral therapy. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021;8(12):ofab550. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Ma W, et al. A synbiotic combination of mixed probiotics and oligofructose restores intestinal microbiota disturbance in DSS-induced colitis in mice. Front Microbiol. 2025;16:1582155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Yadav MK, et al. Probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics: safe options for next-generation therapeutics. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2022;106(2):505–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Zhang XL, et al. Effects of probiotics on diarrhea and CD4 cell count in people living with HIV: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:570520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Ma J, et al. Gut Microbiome (Bacteria, Fungi, and Viruses) and HIV infection: revealing novel treatment strategies. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2023;67(23):e2300566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Rousseau RK, et al. Randomized, Blinded, Placebo-Controlled trial of de Simone formulation probiotic during HIV-Associated suboptimal CD4 + T cell recovery. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2022;89(2):199–207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Portincasa P, et al. Gut microbiota and short chain fatty acids: implications in glucose homeostasis. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Jan 20;23(3):1105. 10.3390/ijms23031105. PMID: 35163038;PMCID: PMC8835596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Deusch S, et al. Effects of HIV, antiretroviral therapy and prebiotics on the active fraction of the gut microbiota. Aids. 2018;32(10):1229–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Ceccarelli G, et al. Challenges in the management of HIV infection: update on the role of probiotic supplementation as a possible complementary therapeutic strategy for cART treated people living with HIV/AIDS. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2019;19(9):949–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Villoslada-Blanco P, Pérez-Matute P, Oteo JA. Lights and shadows of microbiota modulation and cardiovascular risk in HIV patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jun25;18(13):6837. 10.3390/ijerph18136837. PMID: 34202210; PMCID: PMC8297340. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Serrano-Villar S, et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation in HIV: A pilot placebo-controlled study. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):1139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Utay NS, et al. Evaluation of six weekly oral fecal microbiota transplants in people with HIV. Pathog Immun. 2020;5(1):364–81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Kang Y, Cai Y. Altered gut microbiota in HIV infection: future perspective of fecal microbiota transplantation therapy. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2019;35(3):229–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Díaz-García C, et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation alters the proteomic landscape of inflammation in HIV: identifying bacterial drivers. Microbiome. 2024;12(1):214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Ebrahimi R, et al. Safety and efficacy of fecal microbiota transplantation for viral diseases: a systematic review of clinical trials. PLoS One. 2024;19(10):e0311731. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Pattapulavar V, et al. Probiotic-derived postbiotics: a perspective on next-generation therapeutics. Front Nutr. 2025;12:1624539. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Abouelela ME, Helmy YA. Next-generation probiotics as novel therapeutics for improving human health: current trends and future perspectives. Microorganisms. 2024 Feb20;12(3):430. 10.3390/microorganisms12030430. PMID: 38543481; PMCID: PMC10972033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Lou X, et al. Postbiotics as potential new therapeutic agents for sepsis. Burns Trauma. 2023;11:tkad022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Tiwari A, et al. Next-Generation probiotics and chronic diseases: A review of current research and future directions. J Agric Food Chem. 2024;72(50):27679–700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Manrique P, et al. Past, present, and future of microbiome-based therapies. Microbiome Res Rep. 2024;3(2):23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Bhardwaj A, Gupta R. Tuberculosis-related mood disorders: probiotics as a next-generation strategy. Curr Probiotics. 2024;1(1):E081223224300. [Google Scholar]
- 102.Zhang X, et al. The biological activity and potential of probiotics-derived extracellular vesicles as postbiotics in modulating microbiota-host communication. J Nanobiotechnol. 2025;23(1):349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Wang L, et al. Therapeutic peptides: current applications and future directions. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2022;7(1):48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Hitch TCA, et al. Microbiome-based interventions to modulate gut ecology and the immune system. Mucosal Immunol. 2022;15(6):1095–113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Huys G, et al. Microbial characterization of probiotics–advisory report of the working group 8651 probiotics of the Belgian superior health Council (SHC). Mol Nutr Food Res. 2013;57(8):1479–504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Trøseid M, et al. The gut microbiome in coronary artery disease and heart failure: current knowledge and future directions. EBioMedicine. 2020 Feb;52:102649. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102649. PMID: 32062353; PMCID: PMC7016372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Woodworth MH, et al. The role of fecal microbiota transplantation in reducing intestinal colonization with antibiotic-resistant organisms: the current landscape and future directions. Open forum infectious diseases. Oxford University Press US; 2019 Jul 1;6(7):ofz288. 10.1093/ofid/ofz288. Erratum in: Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019 Oct 20;6(10):ofz391. 10.1093/ofid/ofz391. PMID: 31363779; PMCID: PMC6667716. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 108.Ezike TC, et al. Advances in drug delivery systems, challenges and future directions. Heliyon. 2023 Jun 24;9(6):e17488. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17488. PMID: 37416680; PMCID: PMC10320272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Santiago-Rodriguez TM, et al. The skin microbiome: current techniques, challenges, and future directions. Microorganisms. 2023;11(5):1222. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Wang H, et al. Immunotherapy for malignant glioma: current status and future directions. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2020;41(2):123–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111.Righi E. Management of bacterial and fungal infections in end stage liver disease and liver transplantation: current options and future directions. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24(38):4311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112.Tompkins K, van Duin D. Treatment for carbapenem-resistant enterobacterales infections: recent advances and future directions. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021;40(10):2053–68. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113.Mann S, et al. A review of leishmaniasis: current knowledge and future directions. Curr Trop Med Rep. 2021;8(2):121–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114.Zubair A, et al. Targeting HIV-1 conserved regions: an immunoinformatic pathway to vaccine innovation for the Asia. PLoS One. 2025;20(3):e0317382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.


