Abstract
Digestive tumors, including malignancies associated with the gastrointestinal tract, represent a notable global health burden. Advances in microbiome research have highlighted that the gut microbiota-metabolism axis and its associated metabolic derivatives are key modulators of tumorigenesis, immune evasion and treatment responses. The present review aimed to comprehensively discuss how key microbial metabolites, such as polyamines, short-chain fatty acids, bile acids and other compounds reshape the tumor microenvironment, modulate cellular signaling and affect immune responses. By integrating insights from microbiology, immunology, oncology and metabolic changes in digestive tumors, evidence suggests that the microbiota contributes to cancer progression through mechanisms involving epigenetic regulation, metabolic reprogramming, genotoxicity and production of inflammatory mediators. Beneficial bacteria, such as Akkermansia muciniphila and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, exhibit antitumor activity, whereas pathogenic species, such as Helicobacter pylori and Fusobacterium nucleatum, are associated with oncogenic properties. Based on a literature search, microbiota-targeted therapy seems to be promising for the management of pathological conditions, especially digestive diseases. Further investigations into the pharmaceutical application of microbiota through prebiotics, probiotics and metabolite-targeted interventions, along with multi-omics integration and microbiome-host interactome validation, would be promising for improving personalized medicine and precision oncology.
Keywords: gut microbiota, digestive tumor, microbial dysbiosis, tumor microenvironment
1. Introduction
Digestive tumors are a series of malignancies affecting the gastrointestinal tract and associated tissues, including the esophagus, stomach, liver, pancreas, colon, rectum and biliary ducts (1). These malignancies, especially colorectal, gastric and hepatocellular cancers (HCC), account for a substantial proportion of cancer-related mortality worldwide. According to the Global Cancer Statistics, ~4.7 million new cases and >3.2 million reported mortalities were associated with digestive tumors in 2022. Among them, the most frequent types of digestive malignancies were colorectal cancer (CRC), which accounted for 1.9 million new cases with >900,000 mortalities annually, and gastric cancer, which accounted for ~1.1 million new cases and >800,000 mortalities annually (2). Gastric cancer is more frequent in Eastern Asian countries, such as Japan, South Korea and China (3). Genetic predisposition, environmental risk factors, infections, metabolic changes and microbial factors are markedly involved in the pathogenesis of these malignancies (1). Over the years, researchers have focused on gut-microbial interactions, particularly regarding how dysbiosis influences host metabolic alterations and participates in tissue microenvironment changes, tumor development, progression and response to treatment (4-7). Within this framework, manipulation of the gut microbial metabolism axis represents a promising avenue for developing innovative therapeutic strategies for cancer management.
The human gastrointestinal tract harbors a complex and diverse microbial ecosystem composed of bacteria, archaea, fungi and viruses, known as the gut microbiota (8). This ecosystem has emerged as a fundamental regulator of human physiology in health and disease, particularly affecting metabolism, immunity and tissue homeostasis (9). It serves as a repository for numerous microorganisms that encode a complex pool of enzymes and facilitate the digestion of complex dietary components of the gut. In addition, gut microbiota can orchestrate the host metabolic functions, including fermentation of the dietary fibers, modulation of protein and amino acid metabolism, vitamin synthesis and bile acid transformation (10).
Disruption of the equilibrium between the host and microbiota, known as dysbiosis, is characterized by a decreased proportion of beneficial commensals and overrepresentation of pathogenic or proinflammatory species (6,7). This imbalance has been associated with a range of pathological consequences, including metabolic dysregulation, chronic inflammatory diseases, digestive tumors and even neurodegenerative complications (7). The gut microbiota-host metabolism axis produces various bioactive metabolites, such as amino acid derivatives, short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), secondary bile acids and other microbial products. These compounds serve notable roles in immune cell activation, inflammation, cellular signaling and epigenetic modification (8,11). These microbial metabolites can potentially influence the tumor microenvironment (TME) by activating or suppressing tumor immune cells, checkpoint inhibitors and contributing to tumor immune escape, therapeutic response or resistance (12-14).
Due to the rapid expansion of research in this field, a comprehensive focus on how the gut microbiota-host interplay affects metabolic changes and their therapeutic implications for digestive tumors is essential. Through a multidisciplinary search approach, the present review aimed to integrate current knowledge, summarizing evidence on compositional changes in the gut microbiota across various digestive malignancies and providing detailed mechanistic insights into microbiota-based applications in oncology and targeted therapeutic strategies. The challenges in translating microbiome research into clinical practice are also addressed and emerging microbial-targeted interventions are discussed, focusing on the prospects of microbiome-based personalized medicine.
2. Search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria
The present narrative review was performed based on targeted literature searches spanning January 2000 to September 2025 across major online medical academic databases, including MEDLINE/PubMed (https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline/medline_home.html; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/), Scopus (https://www.scopus.com/), and Web of Science (https://www.webofscience.com/), supplemented with manual screening of references from the included studies. The primary search syntax was combined using the Boolean operators (AND, OR and NOT), and included the following terms as keywords: ‘Gut microbiota’, ‘microbiome’, ‘digestive tumors’, ‘gastrointestinal cancer’, ‘hepatocellular carcinoma’, ‘pancreatic cancer’, ‘colorectal cancer’, ‘microbial metabolites’, ‘short-chain fatty acids’, ‘bile acids’, ‘polyamines’ and ‘tumor microenvironment’.
The included studies were English-written original research articles, review articles and meta-analyses in the field of the study. Studies were excluded if they addressed non-digestive malignancies or lacked substantial information on microbiota-metabolism related mechanisms. Due to the narrative design of the present review, formal systematic review procedures (such as protocol registration or risk-of-bias scoring) were not applied. Instead, emphasis was placed on mechanistic and clinically relevant studies to provide an integrative prospective.
3. Gut microbiota in digestive tumors: Current understanding
Distinct microbial signatures have been observed in various digestive tumors, and are often associated with disease stage, progression and treatment outcomes (15-17). These patterns suggest that the gut microbiota is not only effective in digestive biology but also in pathogenic status, serving as a driver, modulator and notable therapeutic target for personalized medicine (15,18). The following section details the specific composition of microbiota and their alterations in dysbiosis observed across major digestive malignancies.
4. Composition and dysbiosis of the gut microbiota in digestive tumors
Understanding the alterations in microbial composition across different digestive tumors can provide insights into cancer etiology and offer novel biomarkers and therapeutic targets (Fig. 1). Common features of dysbiosis in digestive tumors, such as pancreatic, liver, gastric and CRCs, substantially contribute to tumorigenesis through mechanisms such as genotoxicity, metabolic reprogramming, chronic inflammation and immune evasion (19,20).
Figure 1.
Comparative image of microbial composition shift across cancer specific and healthy individuals is depicted, where the key elements and their approximate frequencies are represented as pie and bar charts relatively associated with bacterial composition.
CRC
The gut bacterial composition of colon tissue in healthy individuals is dominated by Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, with a lower proportion of Proteobacteria, Fusobacteria and Acinetobacter (21,22). Dysbiosis in CRC is marked by the abundance of pathogenic species in the colon tissue, including Bacteroides fragilis, Fusobacterium nucleatum (F. nucleatum) and some strains of Escherichia coli. (E. coli), such as phylogroups B2 and A (23-26). These bacteria contribute to tumorigenesis by inducing chronic inflammation, promoting DNA damage and suppressing the antitumor immune responses in cancerous tissues. Additionally, the overrepresentation of species, such as Peptostreptococcus and Parvimonas, is frequently reported in the advanced stages of CRC (18,27,28). Furthermore, depletion of beneficial commensals, such as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii (F. prausnitzii), Lachnospiraceae and Akkermansia muciniphila (A. muciniphila), serving as the key regulators of intestinal barrier function, was associated with decreased production of anti-inflammatory SCFAs (26,29,30). Decreased production of SCFAs, such as butyrate, impedes the inhibitory effects of histone deacetylase (HDAC), thereby improving survival and increasing the proliferation of CRC cells through the Warburg effect (31-33). In addition, carcinogenic metabolites, such as secondary bile acids, N-nitroso compounds and hydrogen sulfide, induce genotoxic stress (caused by production of colibactin by pathogenic strains of E. coli that results in DNA double-strand breakage and somatic mutations) and epithelial transformation (34-37).
Gastric cancer
Compared with the intestine, the gastric microbiota has less diversity, owing to the acidic environment of the gastric tissue (38). Nevertheless, distinct microbial shifts have been reported in terms of gastric complications. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) induces chronic gastritis, epithelial damage and carcinogenesis in the gastric tissues (4,39). The bacterial load of H. pylori is markedly increased in >70% of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (40). Beyond H. pylori, the other changes in the gastric microbiota, including increased Lactobacillus reuteri (25) and Streptococcus, have been identified in gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia (41).
In gastric cancer, H. pylori induces oncogenic signaling pathways through its virulence factors, including cytotoxin-associated gene A (CagA) and vacuolating cytotoxin A gene. CagA activates nuclear factor κB (NF-κB) and STAT3, resulting in the overexpression of IL-8/cyclooxygenase-2 and gastric epithelial apoptosis (35,42,43). H. pylori also increases the production of reactive oxygen species, causes mutations in the tumor protein p53 gene and chromosomal instability (44). By contrast, decreased proportions of beneficial bacteria such as Lactobacillus gasseri and Bifidobacterium have been observed in patients with gastric cancer (45,46). Lactobacillus gasseri is needed for lactic acid production, gastric mucosa protection and maintenance of gastric acidity. Gastric bacteria dysbiosis results in overgrowth of opportunistic bacteria such as Streptococcus, which contributes to alteration in arginine metabolism and increased mucosal inflammation, activation of oncogenic signaling pathways, and increase in the production of N-nitroso compounds in the gastric tissue, thereby promoting DNA damage and mutagenesis in gastric epithelial cells (4,47,48).
Pancreatic cancer
Contrary to traditional beliefs, the pancreas is not a completely sterile organ (49). Previous studies have demonstrated that pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is influenced by microbial translocation from the oval cavity or gut, indicating a notable link between dysbiosis and pancreatic tumors (50-52). Genomic studies have demonstrated the presence of Proteobacteria, Acinetobacter and Enterobacteriaceae within the pancreatic tumor environment, where they may contribute to immune responses modulation and chemoresistance (20,53-55). In addition, the decreased abundance of beneficial bacteria, particularly Bacteroides and Clostridium in the gut reduces the production of SCFAs which may support cancer progression by disturbing mucosal defense and providing an inflammatory microbial environment (20). Periodontal pathogens, such as Porphyromonas gingivalis and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, have also been identified as risk factors for pancreatic cancer, possibly through the oral-gut axis, systemic inflammation and immune modulation (50). Pancreatic dysbiosis may contribute to the regulation of bile acid metabolism, tumorigenic microenvironment development and tumor progression (20).
HCC
The development of HCC is notably associated with chronic liver diseases, such as viral hepatitis and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (1); both conditions are affected by disturbances in the gut microbiota-liver axis. Dysbiosis in HCC is characterized by increased abundance of pathogenic bacteria (Enterococcus faecalis, Clostridium scindens and Escherichia species) and depletion of beneficial bacteria (Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium adolescentis), thus reducing the production of SCFAs and impairing epithelial repair and anti-inflammatory signaling (19). Pathogenic bacteria in HCC produce endotoxins, such as lipopolysaccharides (LPS) and other microbial products, that infiltrate the gut, activate hepatic Kupffer cells and promote chronic inflammation and fibrosis in the liver. For instance, Clostridium scindens exerts bile acid toxicity by converting primary bile acids to deoxycholic acid and activating hepatic stellate cells through farnesoid X receptor (FXR)/G protein-coupled bile acid receptor (TGR5) signaling (56,57).
Esophageal cancer
The esophageal microbiota is markedly influenced by diet, reflux and oral hygiene. Dysbiotic alterations in esophageal adenocarcinoma include an increase in the abundance of Veillonella, Campylobacter and Proteobacteria (1). These bacteria can produce proinflammatory molecules and LPS in the esophageal tissue (24). Continuous exposure of esophageal cells to LPS results in the activation of NF-κB and STAT3 signaling pathways and increasing the production of TNF-α and IL-6, which pro-tumorigenesis events, supporting cell survival, proliferation, migration and invasion associated with malignant phenotypes (58,59).
5. Key microbial metabolites in digestive tumors
The gut microbiota produces various metabolites that directly or indirectly influence the immune response, inflammation, signaling pathways and cellular microenvironment in digestive tumors. These bioactive compounds serve as signaling mediators, epigenetic modifiers, inflammatory modulators and TME modifiers. The major microbial metabolites of the gut microbiota in patients with digestive tumors are presented in Table I and discussed in the present section.
Table I.
Major microbiota shift across digestive tumors.
| Taxon | Primary tumor sites | Functional category | Principal mechanisms | Microbiota effect on tumor biology | (Refs.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fusobacterium nucleatum | Colorectal, gastric, esophagus | Pathogenic bacteria | Induce inflammation, promotes M2-macrophage polarization | Interfere with chemotherapeutic agents, such as 5-FU | (59,133,134) |
| Bacteroides fragilis | Colorectal, hepatocellular | Pathogenic bacteria | Produce enterotoxins, disrupts E-cadherin, activates Wnt/β-catenin signaling and promotes inflammation | Promote epithelial mesenchymal transition, increase genomic instability, promote tumor progression | (135-137) |
| Escherichia coli (colibactin-positive species) | Colorectal, hepatocellular | Pathogenic bacteria | Produce colibactin, promote double stranded DNA breakage and induce KRAS mutations | Causes genotoxicity injuries, incorporates in tumor initiation and progression | (105,106,138) |
| Helicobacter pylori | Gastric cancer | Pathogenic bacteria | Produce CagA and VacA factors, activates NF-κB and STAT3 signaling and promotes ROS-mediated DNA damage | Induce gastritis, gastric atrophy, metaplasia and gastric adenocarcinoma | (40,44) |
| Streptococcus | Gastric, esophagus | Pathogenic bacteria | Increase lactate production, activates VEGF/MMP9 signaling and promotes pro-inflammatory signaling | Induces angiogenesis in tumor microenvironment, enhance tumor invasion and metastasis | (39,48,59) |
| Faecalibacterium prausnitzii | Colorectal, hepatocellular | Beneficial commensal | Produces butyrate and other SCFAs, inhibits histone deacetylases and maintains epithelial barrier integrity | Tumor suppressive milieu, reduces inflammation, improves epithelial integrity | (24,139) |
| Akkermansia | Colorectal, metabolic diseases | Beneficial commensal | Maintaining mucosal integrity | Exert anti-inflammation and improves response to checkpoint inhibitors. | (23,27,123) |
| Lachnospiraceae | Colorectal, hepatocellular | Beneficial commensal | Produces butyrate and other SCFAs, inhibits histone deacetylases and maintains epithelial barrier integrity | Tumor suppressive milieu, reduces inflammation and improves epithelial integrity | (140,141) |
| Bifidobacterium | Gastric, colorectal | Beneficial commensal | Produces SCFA and indole derivatives, promotes dendritic cell maturation | Improves antitumor immunity, reduces colitis and associated tumorigenesis | (30,46) |
SCFA, short chain fatty acid; CagA, cytotoxin-associated gene A; VacA, vacuolating cytotoxin A gene; NF-κB, nuclear factor κB; ROS, reactive oxygen species.
SCFAs
Beneficial commensals, such as F. prausnitzii and Lachnospiraceae, are gut microbiota that produce SCFAs (acetate, butyrate and propionate) through bacterial fermentation of dietary fibers in the colon tissue (31,60). Butyrate serves a bifunctional role in digestive tumors, acting as an epigenetic regulator (inhibition of HDAC) and modulating cell cycle checkpoints, NF-κB and Wnt/β-catenin pathways, which are context-dependent (33,61). This means that in healthy colonocytes, butyrate helps improve differentiation, increases apoptosis and promotes anti-inflammatory signaling primarily by inhibiting HDAC and binding to G-protein-coupled receptors (such as free fatty acid receptor 2/3 and hydroxycarboxylic acid receptor 2) (62-64). However, in advanced colorectal tumors, particularly under hypoxia which results in increased glycolytic effects (Warburg phenotype), the uptake and oxidation of butyrate are altered as its intracellular accumulation suppresses HDAC and arrests cellular growth and differentiation. In addition, butyrate interacts with immune and stromal components within the TME, thereby promoting the differentiation of T lymphocytes and enhancing the epithelial barrier integrity (32). Acetate and propionate affect lipid metabolism and glucose hemostasis in CRC cell lines and exhibit anti-inflammatory properties by activating G-protein-coupled receptors (GPR41 and GPR43) that regulate cytokine production and immune cell function (64-66). In addition, propionate inhibits the activation of the NLR family pyrin domain containing 3 inflammasome and exerts protective effects by reducing colitis-associated CRC (67).
Bile acids
Within the gut, bile acids originate from two distinct sources as follows: Primary bile acids are naturally synthesized in the liver and secreted in conjugated form to the intestine, whereas secondary bile acids, such as deoxycholic acid (DCA) and lithocholic acid (LCA) are produced through transformation by gut microbiota, such as Clostridium species (37). DCA and LCA subsequently contribute to tumor biology and metabolic reprogramming by activating cell-surface receptors (such as FXR and TGR5) in epithelial, immune and hepatic cells, inducing pro-inflammatory cytokines, as well as oxidative and nitrosative stress, thereby modulating DNA damage through the activation of NADPH oxidase. In addition, they can activate oncogenic signaling pathways by affecting the expression of gene involved in the Wnt/β-catenin, NF-κB and EGFR/MAPK pathways (36). Although LCA can induce apoptosis in some types of cancer (such as nephroblastoma, acute myeloid leukemia, and breast cancer), it exhibits inflammatory properties and induces epithelial injury under dysbiotic conditions (68-72). Furthermore, LCA promotes metastasis in gastric cancer cells by activating TGR5, modulating the EGFR/MAPK signaling pathway and inducing cell migration (11,37,61,73,74).
Amino acid-derived metabolites
The gut microbiota can metabolize amino acids into different compounds, such as polyamines, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), kynurenine, indole-3-propionic acid (IPA) and indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), which influence tumor biology (75). Kynurenine, produced by Lactobacillus, serves as a biomarker of poor prognosis in digestive tumors (76); it suppresses the activation of T-lymphocytes, facilitates immune evasion and mediates tryptophan catabolism in the gut (77). Tryptophan can be metabolized in the gut by both kynurenine-dependent pathways and the gut microbiota-host metabolism axis. IPA, a byproduct of tryptophan catabolism, can impair T-cytotoxic immune function, improve epithelial barrier function and modulate the immune response in pancreatic cancer (78,79). In a CRC model, IPA demonstrated anti-inflammatory effects and inhibited tumor growth (80). Bifidobacterium produces IAA, which binding to and activating aryl hydrocarbon receptors on immune cell surface, therefore, contributes to downregulating the expression of interleukin-22 binding protein (IL-22BP), This results in decreasing the intercellular IL-22, a potent oncogenic cytokine, levels that indicates its protective effects in HCC (81-83).
Polyamines (putrescine, spermine and spermidine) are the other amino acid-derived metabolites, which can be produced by Bacteroides species and are derived from ornithine and arginine metabolism (84,85). Aberrant production of polyamines promote tumor proliferation, angiogenesis and metastasis (85). In gastric cancer, elevated polyamine levels are associated with angiogenesis through increased production of hypoxia inducible factor 1-α and VEGF (86). Increased polyamine levels have also been associated with the proliferation of CRC cell lines (87). Sulfate-reducing bacteria, such as Desulfovibrio and Bilophila, metabolize dietary cysteine and produce H2S, which has dual functions under different conditions. At low, physiological concentrations, H2S exerts a protective role by supporting mucosal barrier integrity, redox hemostasis and mitigating excessive inflammation in the gut (88,89), thereby contributing to epithelial defense and immune balance. In addition. H2S serves as a signaling molecule that supports intestinal homeostasis, prevents chronic injury development and preserves epithelial cell survival and repair. By contrast, increasing the abundance of sulfidogenic bacteria during dysbiosis results in locally increased levels of H2S; therefore, a disequilibrium between H2S levels and detoxification pathways occurs in colonocytes and shifts its effects toward promoting tumor development (90,91). However, in dysbiosis and at high concentrations, H2S modulates DNA hypermethylation (inhibits DNA methyltransferase), silences the secreted frizzled related protein 2 tumor suppressor gene and activates NF-κB signaling (92).
Other microbial metabolites
The gut microbiota can produce other metabolites, including phenolic compounds (such as flavonoids), lactate and ammonia, which are functional in reshaping the TME and immune responses (93). LPS is a structural component of the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria (45); LPS is a potent bacterial endotoxin that activates the innate immune system via Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) signaling, resulting in chronic inflammation by activating NF-κB signaling and increasing the production of tumor-promoting cytokines, such as IL-6 and IL-8, in gastric and pancreatic cancers (94). Increased LPS levels have also been identified in hepatocellular and gastric cancers (94).
6. Metabolic interaction between gut microbiota and digestive tumors
Beyond specific metabolites, the gut microbiota is involved in numerous metabolic interactions that contribute to the pathogenesis of digestive tumors. The gut microbiota is a key regulator of host physiology, particularly in digestive tumor biology, immune responses, cellular signaling and TME remodeling (7,26,79). A comprehensive list of microbial alterations in digestive tumors and their corresponding mechanisms is presented in Table II.
Table II.
Key microbial-derived metabolites and their mechanisms in digestive tumors.
| Metabolite | Source microbes | Mechanisms of action | Clinical implications | (Refs.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCFAs-butyrate, acetate, propionate | Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Lachnospiraceae, Roseburia | Inhibit histone deacetylases, modulate NF-κB pathway, activate G-protein coupled receptors (FFAR2/3 and GPR109A); regulate T regulatory cells | Potential adjuvant therapy; dietary fiber and probiotic supplementation to boost SCFAs | (26,63,142) |
| Secondary bile acids (deoxycholic acid, lithocholic acid) | A wide range of gut microbiota | Gut microbiota enzymatically converts primary bile acids, induce oxidative stress, stimulate oncogenic Wnt/β-catenin and NF-κB pathways; DNA damage induction | Target bile acid receptors (FXR and TGR5); bile acid metabolism modulators; antioxidants | (11,34,74) |
| Kynurenine | Lactobacillus, other gut microbes | Suppresses cytotoxic T cell activation by modulating tryptophan metabolism; facilitates immune evasion | Target immune checkpoints (PD1/PD-L1); therapeutic tryptophan pathway modulation | (77,86) |
| Indole compounds (indole-3-propionic acid, indole-3-acetic acid) | Bifidobacterium, other gut commensals | Modulate epithelial barrier function; regulate immune signaling and inflammatory responses | Prognostic biomarkers; therapeutic metabolites supplementation; microbiome-targeted therapies | (75,81,100) |
| Polyamines (putrescine, spermine, spermidine) | Bacteroides species | Stimulate angiogenesis, tumor cell proliferation, and metastasis through modulation of gene expression and signaling pathways | Target polyamine biosynthesis or uptake pathways; potential chemotherapy adjuncts | (85) |
| Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) | Desulfovibrio, Bilophila | Dual role: supports mucosal integrity at physiological levels but induces DNA hypermethylation, inhibits DNA repair, and promotes inflammation at high concentrations | Potential biomarker for stromal activation; therapeutic target for modulating H2S levels | (88,90) |
| ROS | Multiple gut microbial species | Produce by multiple gut microbial species and metabolic reactions and induces DNA damage, lipid peroxidation, and oxidative stress; promotes inflammatory cytokine production | Antioxidant therapy adjunct; microbiome modulation to reduce ROS-producing bacteria | (60,84) |
| Trimethylamine N-oxide | Various species | Gut microbiota metabolizes dietary choline and carnitine, promotes inflammatory responses and immune cell activation; induces pyroptosis in tumor cells | Potential immunotherapeutic adjuvant; dietary modulation of precursors | (85,143) |
| Lipopolysaccharides | Klebsiella, Escherichia coli | Activates TLR4 signaling, promotes NF-κB-mediated proinflammatory cytokine production | Target TLR4 pathway; anti-inflammatory agents; microbiome-directed therapy | (63) |
SCFA, short chain fatty acid; ROS, reactive oxygen species; TLR-4 Toll-like receptor 4; NF-κB, nuclear factor κB; FFAR2/3, free fatty acid receptor 2/3; GPR109A, hydroxycarboxylic acid receptor 2; FXR, farnesoid X receptor; TGR5, G protein-coupled bile acid receptor; PD1, programmed cell death protein 1, PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1.
Remodeling of the TME
The gut microbiota contributes to TME remodeling within cancer cells by regulating cellular interactions and cytokine production to support cellular proliferation and survival (14). Butyrate acts as an epigenetic regulator in normal colonocytes, inhibits HDAC, induces transcriptional changes to induce apoptosis and supports epithelial barrier integrity in normal colonocytes; however, within the hypoxic TME of CRC, it serves as an energy source, promoting the survival and chemoresistance of tumor cells (33). Lactate is another metabolite produced within the TME, owing to the increased demand for energy sources or by the in-house microbiota (75). By binding to glycoprotein receptors, such as GPR81, it serves as a metabolic substrate for signaling molecules and therefore promotes immunosuppression and angiogenesis in the TME (95). Streptococcus species acidify the gastric TME by producing lactate, resulting in VEGF/MMP9 activation and immune evasion (96,97). Immune evasion is a unique characteristic of the cancer cells within the TME; this phenomenon is facilitated by the activation of inflammatory pathways, such as NF-κB, Wnt/β-catenin signaling and STAT3, which are mediated by secondary bile acids and the production of reactive oxygen species (98). In HCC, the overgrowth of Clostridium scindens was observed under dysbiosis, which is potentially associated with increased conversion of primary bile acids to secondary ones such as DCA (36). As aforementioned, the increased levels of DCA within the TME is mechanistically associated with DNA damage and inflammation resulting in cancerous cell migration, invasion and extracellular matrix remodeling (99,100).
Metabolic reprogramming and immune evasion of microbiota-host immune cells
Microbial metabolites, such as SCFA, kynurenine and indole derivatives, influence cancer cell proliferation and tumor growth (8). In dysbiosis, changes in amino acid metabolism by the gut microbiota (such as Lactobacillus) alter the levels of amino acid catabolites such as indole-3-acetic acid and kynurenine, Tryptophan derived catabolites, which can activate aryl hydrocarbon receptors on immune cell surface, promote immunosuppressive phenotypes, reduce T-cytotoxic lymphocytes and mediate immune tolerance in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (93,101-103). In addition, increased ammonia levels, originating from proteolytic bacteria, result in T cell exhaustion and impair antitumor activity. Microbial metabolites also provide nutrients and immune cell energy sources within the TME. The microbiota can also act as proinflammatory mediators. For instance, LPS from gram-negative bacteria (such as Klebsiella) induce epithelial mesenchymal transition in pancreatic cancer by activating TLR4 signaling, resulting in the activation of NF-κB and the release of proinflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α and IL-6(104).
Genotoxicity and epigenetic alteration
In CRC, some E. coli strains (such as phylogroups B1 and B2) can produce colibactin, a genotoxin that induces chromosomal instability and breakage in double-stranded DNA and exerts somatic mutations in the KRAS gene, resulting in mutagenesis (105-107). In dysbiosis, microbial compounds can also promote the accumulation of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species, thereby intensify oxidative DNA damage and promote lipid peroxidation (44). In addition to directed DNA damage, microbial metabolites such as butyrate (HDAC inhibitor) can induce epigenetic alterations and affect cellular DNA condensation within the TME (33,79).
Role of gut microbiota in metabolism of xenobiotic compounds
Microbial biotransformation is a process by which the gut microbiota processes chemical compounds, including dietary substances and xenobiotics (108). Xenobiotics are chemical substances that do not originate intrinsically, such as medications, environmental pollutants, dietary compounds and other chemical substances. The gut microbiota serves a pivotal role in biotransformation and markedly affects the risk of cancer development in the digestive tissues. In dysbiosis, microbial biotransformation may activate carcinogenic compounds, induce DNA damage and affect host detoxification pathways (108).
The microbial metabolism of xenobiotic compounds typically involves two main phases (108). In the first phase, the oxidation, reduction and hydrolysis of xenobiotics are often mediated by analog compounds of cytochrome P450 (cytP450). For instance, aflatoxin B1 (AFB-1), a mycotoxin produced by Aspergillus species; AFB-1, is typically converted by cytP450 to a carcinogenic epoxide. Gut microbiota, such as Lactobacillus, produce enzymes that detoxify AFB-1. Under dysbiosis, overproduction of AFB-1 disrupts DNA structure and leads to HCC (109). The second phase of xenobiotic metabolism involves increasing the solubility and facilitating the excretion of xenobiotic compounds (110). This phase includes conjugation, sulfation and methylation reactions. For example, Bacteroides and Clostridium produce enzymes similar to β-glucuronidase and azoreductase, which metabolize heterocyclic amines, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (111). Heterocyclic amines potentially induce mutations in essential genes, such as adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) and KRAS, which are risk factors for CRC. Under dysbiosis, these transformation processes are probably disturbed, resulting in carcinogenesis (112,113).
In dysbiosis, the gut microbiota can reduce dietary nitrates to nitrites, and oral Veillonella and gastric H. pylori convert nitrites to nitrosamines, which are potent mutagens that contribute to gastric carcinoma (114,115). Environmental pollutants, such as heavy metals, can also be detoxified by some microbiota strains, such as Lactobacillus strains, which bind to and reduce the bioavailability and nephrotoxicity of cadmium and arsenic (116,117). Another notable role of the microbiota in the metabolism of xenobiotic compounds is detoxification and drug metabolism (117,118); for instance, Eggerthella lenta inactivates digoxin, a chemotherapeutic agent, and Enterococcus species can detoxify and mitigate the production of cisplatin-induced reactive oxygen species (119).
Gut microbiota modulates immune response and TME remodeling
The intricate association between the gut microbiota and immune response in digestive tumors supports their pivotal role in regulating inflammatory signals, immune cell differentiation, cytokine production and immune checkpoint alterations within the TME of digestive tumors (Fig. 2). The gut microbiota can directly affect the local immunity of the TME within digestive tumors, such as gastric and CRC. Within the gastrointestinal tract, a consistent interplay between the gut microbiota and mucosal immune system is evident. In dysbiosis, pathogenic bacteria such as F. nucleatum suppress local immunity, and in CRC, F. nucleatum inhibits tumor cell cytotoxicity by binding to the T cell immunoreceptor with Ig and ITIM domains receptor on natural killer cells and cytotoxic T lymphocytes (Fig. 3). Dysbiotic microbiota, such as F. nucleatum induce M2-polarization of tumor-associated macrophages and block the production of tumor-suppressor cytokines, such as IL-10 and TGF-β (78,86).
Figure 2.
The interaction between the gut microbiota and the tumor microenvironment (TME) as a schematic diagram of bidirectional gut microbiota-TME interaction in digestive tumors is represented, where initiates from dysbiosis (diet, inflammation), and follows by producing microbial metabolites (propionate, colibactin), and circulatory repetition.
Figure 3.

Tumor microenvironment and gut microbiota crosstalk in health and digestive tumors is depicted.
Commensal bacteria are essential for maintaining epithelial integrity and equilibrium between pro- and anti-inflammatory signals. A balanced intestinal microbiota is essential for the host to support immune homeostasis by inducing the maturation of circulating immune cells, including dendritic cells, macrophages and different subtypes of T lymphocytes within secondary lymphoid organs (7,45). Bifidobacterium and F. prausnitzii produce SCFAs, tryptophan derivatives and secondary bile acids that can enter the bloodstream, interact with immune cells and promote anti-inflammatory responses and cytotoxicity of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (23,24,29). In addition, microbial translocation has been proposed as a risk factor for premetastatic niches, mainly because of the immune suppression and inflammation induced by microbial metabolites. Some Escherichia strains and Proteus mirabilis have been found to be incorporated into liver metastases from colorectal tumors. In dysbiosis, the translocation of gut microbiota, such as Enterobacteriaceae, results in locally elevated LPS levels and the activation of TLR4 in hepatic Kupffer cells. These events induce the activation of IL-6/STAT3 signaling and the progression of tumor cells in HCC (35,43).
7. Application of gut microbiota in therapeutic approaches
Mechanistic insights into the interactions of the gut microbiota-metabolism axis are beneficial for developing targeted therapeutic strategies, such as manipulating microbiome composition to induce favorable metabolic or immunological responses, which is possible through microbiota profiling. Integrating knowledge of microbiota profile on regulation of the host-metabolic pathways provides a roadmap to understand how microbiota-based intervention can be translated in personalized therapeutic approaches.
Gut microbiota determines response to treatment
Gut microbiota profiling is useful for predicting therapeutic outcomes, particularly in digestive tumors. Beyond its influence on tumor biology, microbial composition can also affect drug metabolism and determine the efficiency of checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapeutic agents (7,118,120). Therefore, microbial diversity can be used as a determining factor for whether a patient is resistant or responsive to treatment. For instance, Heshiki et al (121) investigated the intestinal microbiota profile in patients with different cancers and identified a significant microbiota diversity in patients who were responded successfully to treatment than non-responder patients. Based on microbiota profile, the authors developed a machine leaning model to predict treatment outcome indicating a positive correlation between Bacteroides and positive response to treatment, and validated the accuracy of model in a different cohort.
Microbiota modulates response to immune checkpoint inhibitors
The use of antibodies against immune checkpoint inhibitors, including anti-programmed cell death protein 1, anti-programmed death-ligand 1 and anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4, is an emerging therapy that affects T cell-mediated antitumor activity. Currently, gut microbiota composition has been introduced as a predictor of response to treatment with checkpoint inhibitors (12,122). Patients with a microbiota profile enriched in beneficial commensals, such as A. muciniphila and Bifidobacterium, usually respond favorably to treatment (123). These bacteria have the potential to increase antigen presentation, increase effector T-cells levels and promote dendritic cell maturation. Transferring beneficial microbiota to non-responders to immune checkpoint inhibitors is a promising hypothesis for restoring immunomodulatory and therapeutic outcomes in a personalized medicine approach.
Microbiota interacts with chemotherapeutic agents
Multiple studies on the influence of gut microbiota on treatment outcomes with chemotherapeutic agents have indicated that microbial enzymes can induce the activation or degradation of certain medications (124,125). For example, Mycoplasma hyorhinis produces cytidine deaminase, which inactivates gemcitabine in patients with pancreatic cancer. In addition, Lactobacillus species exert a synergistic effect on 5-FU cytotoxicity by producing thymidylate synthase inhibitors (126).
8. Challenges in clinical translation of microbiota-targeted therapies
Although the use of beneficial microbiota in the real world seems promising through the administration of probiotics, prebiotics, fecal microbiota transplantation or medications targeting the gut microbiota, several challenges confine its clinical translation. First, inter-individual variability exists in the microbial composition; these variabilities, which arise from geography, genetics, age and lifestyle, can complicate patient stratification and prediction of the response to treatment (127). The possibility of confounding factors, such as the use of medications targeting proton pump inhibitors, antibiotics or dietary habits, are other challenging factors that limit the reproducibility of microbiota in different populations (128). For instance, antibiotics can eradicate beneficial taxa, such as A. muciniphila (129); another example is the variability in the use of dietary fibers, as they enhance the production of SCFAs. Therefore, it is necessary to control dietary intake when designing clinical trials (130). Beyond the inter-individual variabilities, the long-term safety of sustained microbiota-targeted interventions remains incompletely characterized; in addition, the standardization of sampling, sequencing and functional validation, along with its regulatory framework is essential for more robust, guideline-based clinical validation.
9. Discussion and future directions
In the present review, the intricate and multifaceted importance of the gut microbiota in digestive tumors was comprehensively explored. The microbiota-metabolism axis exerts substantial influence on digestive tumorigenesis through mainly regulating cellular processes such as metabolic reprogramming, epigenetic remodeling and immunomodulating within the TME. In particular, microbial dysbiosis and its related key metabolites, including polyamines, SCFA, secondary bile acids and indole derivatives, were found to be critical mediators of epithelial integrity and tumor immunity by promoting chronic inflammation, DNA damage, genotoxic injury and metabolic reprogramming.
In addition, the bridging of immunology, oncology, microbiology and pharmacology is a unique aspect, highlighting the bidirectional TME-microbial metabolites in the digestive system, which have often been overlooked in research. As previously discussed, microbial compounds and metabolites can be incorporated into the host metabolism-gut microbiome to regulate signaling pathways (such as Wnt/β-catenin, STAT3 and NF-κB pathways), epigenetics, inflammation and immune evasion of CRC cells. The present review discussed the influence of microbial metabolites, such as SCFA and bile acids, on immunomodulation, inflammation and regulation of cellular signaling. For instance, beneficial commensals such as A. muciniphila and F. praussnitzii were identified to have anti-inflammatory and antitumor properties owing to the production of SCFA and maintenance of epithelial barrier integrity. However, pathogenic bacteria such as H. pylori, F. nucleatum, and some strains of E. coli produce destructive metabolites and toxins that result in inflammation, impaired immune activity, DNA damage and oncogenesis.
Another unique aspect of the present review is the consideration of the gut microbiota as both a modulator and predictor in the counterpart aspects of health and pathogenesis. According to this concept, the microbiota is valid in research on precision oncology and personalized medicine. Future studies may identify these findings not only as biomarkers for early diagnosis but also to elucidate the microbial metabolic pathways for future interventions to block tumor-promoting pathways.
In clinical practice, microbiota modulation can be achieved using antibiotics, probiotics, prebiotics, dietary approaches and fecal microbiota transplantation to restore a healthy microbiome that can enhance antitumor immunity or even remove inflammation. New emerging data have demonstrated the role of microbiota composition in influencing the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors or chemotherapy, emphasizing the role of this axis in personalized treatment strategies.
Despite the unique aspects of the present review, it has some limitations that should be considered. Although it was attempted to explore the functional role of the microbiota in the digestive system, it was not possible to completely address the complexity of the host microbiota-metabolism axis across different conditions. Through increasing knowledge of the mechanistically influence of microbiome aiming for biomarker discovery and therapeutic targeting across digestive tumors, future research can utilize them as determinant biomarkers for risk stratification, predict the response to treatments or consider them as checkpoint inhibitors. Future research should explore the functional validation of microbiota-host interplay by designing observational studies utilizing dietary, probiotic or prebiotic interventions. Future studies should investigate gut microbiome alterations under different pathological and physiological conditions across different populations. By systematically increasing knowledge of microbiome-metabolite complexities in health and disease, they could be considered promising therapeutic candidates for routine clinical cancer treatments. Although some studies have investigated the short-term influence of gut microbiota in clinical trials (131,132); studies investigating the long-term effects of probiotic administration on digestive diseases could not be found. Future research should focus on the dynamic changes in the gut microbiota during cancer management of clinical interventions.
In addition, crosstalk studies on the integration of multi-omics data, combining emerging genomics, metabolomics and immune profiling as part of longitudinal cohorts, will enhance the understanding of causal relationships and identify potential predictive biomarkers. Future research should be designed to address several specific multi-omics aspects to develop personalized microbiota information for precision medicine. First, prospective cohort studies would be beneficial to integrate metagenomics and meta-transcriptomics profiling of the gut microbiota, which is associated with host multi-omics alterations across pathogenic conditions. Improving knowledge in this field (from premalignant lesions to advanced digestive tumors) will be applied in personalized medicine, both in biomarker discovery and personalized therapeutic strategies. Second, studies on multilayer datasets, combining microbiome composition and host interactions, will enhance knowledge of the mechanisms of pathogenesis, immune escape, pharmacokinetic aspects of anticancer agents and clarifying how microbiota taxa influence drug efficiency, dose optimization and treatment selection. Third, integrative studies on detailed dietary patterns with microbiome signatures and host-specific signaling pathways could be promising, bridging lifestyle modifications in high-risk populations.
Clinical trials in the field of microbiota modulation should be designed to assess the integrity of microbiome. Future studies should investigate the interaction of dietary components with gut microbiota dynamics and their influence on gut microbiota function to develop new nutritional strategies for the prevention of tumorigenesis or to improve treatment response. Future studies should elucidate and characterize how gut microbes alter the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anticancer drugs to optimize dosing and limit their toxicity.
In conclusion, the gut microbiota-metabolism axis represents a disruptive paradigm in the field of digestive tumors, with potentially important implications for novel diagnostics and therapeutics. Highlighting the dual function of gut microbial metabolites in tumor progression and repression, the present review emphasizes the importance of microbiome analysis in personalized medicine. The integration of microbiology, oncology, immunology and systems biology will enable interdisciplinary discovery of actionable targets. Ultimately, these combinatorial strategies and personalized microbiome-based therapies can improve patient outcomes.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding Statement
Funding: No funding was received.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Authors' contributions
ZY as the first author was contributed to the study conceptualization and design, data acquisition and interpretation, and providing the primary draft of the manuscript. SW and XY were the co-authors who contributed to the study design, literature searching, data collection and interpretation, and assistance for writing the manuscript. The project administration was equally supported by SW and XY. BS as the correspondence was involved in all the study process including conceptualization and the study design, supervision, consensus and discussion and review and editing of the manuscript. All co-authors participated in writing and evaluating the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Data authentication is not applicable.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Patient consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
- 1.Zhan T, Betge J, Schulte N, Dreikhausen L, Hirth M, Li M, Weidner P, Leipertz A, Teufel A, Ebert MP. Digestive cancers: Mechanisms, therapeutics and management. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2025;10(24) doi: 10.1038/s41392-024-02097-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74:229–263. doi: 10.3322/caac.21834. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Mousavi SE, Ilaghi M, Elahi Vahed I, Nejadghaderi SA. Epidemiology and socioeconomic correlates of gastric cancer in Asia: Results from the GLOBOCAN 2020 data and projections from 2020 to 2040. Sci Rep. 2025;15(6529) doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-90064-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ferreira RM, Pereira-Marques J, Pinto-Ribeiro I, Costa JL, Carneiro F, Machado JC, Figueiredo C. Gastric microbial community profiling reveals a dysbiotic cancer-associated microbiota. Gut. 2018;67:226–236. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Buchta Rosean C, Feng TY, Azar FN, Rutkowski MR. Impact of the microbiome on cancer progression and response to anti-cancer therapies. Adv Cancer Res. 2019;143:255–294. doi: 10.1016/bs.acr.2019.03.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Singh R, Zogg H, Wei L, Bartlett A, Ghoshal UC, Rajender S, Ro S. Gut microbial dysbiosis in the pathogenesis of gastrointestinal dysmotility and metabolic disorders. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2021;27:19–34. doi: 10.5056/jnm20149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Asseri AH, Bakhsh T, Abuzahrah SS, Ali S, Rather IA. The gut dysbiosis-cancer axis: Illuminating novel insights and implications for clinical practice. Front Pharmacol. 2023;14(1208044) doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1208044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Rooks MG, Garrett WS. Gut microbiota, metabolites and host immunity. Nat Rev Immunol. 2016;16:341–352. doi: 10.1038/nri.2016.42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Wang Z, Li L, Wang S, Wei J, Qu L, Pan L, Xu K. The role of the gut microbiota and probiotics associated with microbial metabolisms in cancer prevention and therapy. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13(1025860) doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1025860. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Feng W, Liu J, Cheng H, Zhang D, Tan Y, Peng C. Dietary compounds in modulation of gut microbiota-derived metabolites. Front Nutr. 2022;9(939571) doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.939571. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Molinaro A, Wahlström A, Marschall HU. Role of bile acids in metabolic control. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2018;29:31–41. doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2017.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Barrueto L, Caminero F, Cash L, Makris C, Lamichhane P, Deshmukh RR. Resistance to checkpoint inhibition in cancer immunotherapy. Transl Oncol. 2020;13(100738) doi: 10.1016/j.tranon.2019.12.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bae J, Park K, Kim YM. Commensal microbiota and cancer immunotherapy: Harnessing commensal bacteria for cancer therapy. Immune Netw. 2022;22(e3) doi: 10.4110/in.2022.22.e3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Feng P, Xue X, Bukhari I, Qiu C, Li Y, Zheng P, Mi Y. Gut microbiota and its therapeutic implications in tumor microenvironment interactions. Front Microbiol. 2024;15(1287077) doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1287077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Yang Z, Wang X, Zhou H, Jiang M, Wang J, Sui B. Molecular complexity of colorectal cancer: Pathways, biomarkers, and therapeutic strategies. Cancer Manag Res. 2024;16:1389–1403. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S481656. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Yang Z, Chang Y, Hu Y, An W, Xing C, Sui B. A concise review on advancement in molecular targeted therapy for lung cancer. Period Biol. 2024;126:15–31. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Ryu MH, Lee JL, Chang HM, Kim TW, Kang HJ, Sohn HJ, Lee JS, Kang YK. Patterns of progression in gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated with imatinib mesylate. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2006;36:17–24. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyi212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Gao X, Yin P, Ren Y, Yu L, Tian F, Zhao J, Chen W, Xue Y, Zhai Q. Predicting personalized diets based on microbial characteristics between patients with superficial gastritis and atrophic gastritis. Nutrients. 2023;15(4738) doi: 10.3390/nu15224738. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Mei S, Deng Z, Chen Y, Ning D, Guo Y, Fan X, Wang R, Meng Y, Zhou Q, Tian X. Dysbiosis: The first hit for digestive system cancer. Front Physiol. 2022;13(1040991) doi: 10.3389/fphys.2022.1040991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Cruz MS, Tintelnot J, Gagliani N. Roles of microbiota in pancreatic cancer development and treatment. Gut Microbes. 2024;16(2320280) doi: 10.1080/19490976.2024.2320280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Rinninella E, Raoul P, Cintoni M, Franceschi F, Miggiano GAD, Gasbarrini A, Mele MC. What is the healthy gut microbiota composition? A changing ecosystem across age, environment, diet, and diseases. Microorganisms. 2019;7(14) doi: 10.3390/microorganisms7010014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Magne F, Gotteland M, Gauthier L, Zazueta A, Pesoa S, Navarrete P, Balamurugan R. The firmicutes/bacteroidetes ratio: A relevant marker of gut dysbiosis in obese patients? Nutrients. 2020;12(1474) doi: 10.3390/nu12051474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Colombo F, Illescas O, Noci S, Minnai F, Pintarelli G, Pettinicchio A, Vannelli A, Sorrentino L, Battaglia L, Cosimelli M, et al. Gut microbiota composition in colorectal cancer patients is genetically regulated. Sci Rep. 2022;12(11424) doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-15230-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Li N, Bai C, Zhao L, Sun Z, Ge Y, Li X. The relationship between gut microbiome features and chemotherapy response in gastrointestinal cancer. Front Oncol. 2021;11(781697) doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.781697. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Kulmambetova G, Kurentay B, Gusmaulemova A, Utupov T, Auganova D, Tarlykov P, Mamlin M, Khamzina S, Shalekenov S, Kozhakhmetov A. Association of Fusobacterium nucleatum infection with colorectal cancer in Kazakhstani patients. Front Oncol. 2024;14(1473575) doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1473575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Abdulla MH, Agarwal D, Singh JK, Traiki TB, Pandey MK, Ahmad R, Srivastava SK. Association of the microbiome with colorectal cancer development (review) Int J Oncol. 2021;58(17) doi: 10.3892/ijo.2021.5197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Osman MA, Neoh HM, Ab Mutalib NS, Chin SF, Mazlan L, Raja Ali RA, Zakaria AD, Ngiu CS, Ang MY, Jamal R. Parvimonas micra, Peptostreptococcus stomatis, Fusobacterium nucleatum and Akkermansia muciniphila as a four-bacteria biomarker panel of colorectal cancer. Sci Rep. 2021;11(2925) doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-82465-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Conde-Pérez K, Buetas E, Aja-Macaya P, Martin-De Arribas E, Iglesias-Corrás I, Trigo-Tasende N, Nasser-Ali M, Estévez LS, Rumbo-Feal S, Otero-Alén B, et al. Parvimonas micra can translocate from the subgingival sulcus of the human oral cavity to colorectal adenocarcinoma. Mol Oncol. 2024;18:1143–1173. doi: 10.1002/1878-0261.13506. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Effendi RMRA, Anshory M, Kalim H, Dwiyana RF, Suwarsa O, Pardo LM, Nijsten TEC, Thio HB. Akkermansia muciniphila and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii in immune-related diseases. Microorganisms. 2022;10(2382) doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10122382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Montgomery TL, Toppen LC, Eckstrom K, Heney ER, Kennedy JJ, Scarborough MJ, Krementsov DN. Lactobacillaceae differentially impact butyrate-producing gut microbiota to drive CNS autoimmunity. Gut Microbes. 2024;16(2418415) doi: 10.1080/19490976.2024.2418415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Gomes S, Baltazar F, Silva E, Preto A. Microbiota-derived short-chain fatty acids: New road in colorectal cancer therapy. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14(2359) doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14112359. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Liu G, Tang J, Zhou J, Dong M. Short-chain fatty acids play a positive role in colorectal cancer. Discov Oncol. 2024;15(425) doi: 10.1007/s12672-024-01313-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Han A, Bennett N, Ahmed B, Whelan J, Donohoe DR. Butyrate decreases its own oxidation in colorectal cancer cells through inhibition of histone deacetylases. Oncotarget. 2018;9:27280–27292. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.25546. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Xu Z, Xiao L, Wang S, Cheng Y, Wu J, Meng Y, Bao K, Zhang J, Cheng C. Alteration of gastric microbiota and transcriptome in a rat with gastric intestinal metaplasia induced by deoxycholic acid. Front Microbiol. 2023;14(1160821) doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1160821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Wang S, Kuang J, Zhang H, Chen W, Zheng X, Wang J, Huang F, Ge K, Li M, Zhao M, et al. Bile acid-microbiome interaction promotes gastric carcinogenesis. Adv Sci (Weinh) 2022;9(e2200263) doi: 10.1002/advs.202200263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Ma C, Han M, Heinrich B, Fu Q, Zhang Q, Sandhu M, Agdashian D, Terabe M, Berzofsky JA, Fako V, et al. Gut microbiome-mediated bile acid metabolism regulates liver cancer via NKT cells. Science. 2018;360(eaan5931) doi: 10.1126/science.aan5931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Phelan JP, Reen FJ, Caparros-Martin JA, O'Connor R, O'Gara F. Rethinking the bile acid/gut microbiome axis in cancer. Oncotarget. 2017;8:115736–115747. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.22803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Chen C, Shen J, Du Y, Shi X, Niu Y, Jin G, Liu Y, Shi Y, Lyu J, Lin L. Characteristics of gut microbiota in patients with gastric cancer by surgery, chemotherapy and lymph node metastasis. Clin Transl Oncol. 2022;24:2181–2190. doi: 10.1007/s12094-022-02875-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Dai D, Yang Y, Yu J, Dang T, Qin W, Teng L, Ye J, Jiang H. Interactions between gastric microbiota and metabolites in gastric cancer. Cell Death Dis. 2021;12(1104) doi: 10.1038/s41419-021-04396-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Correa P, Piazuelo MB. Helicobacter pylori infection and gastric adenocarcinoma. US Gastroenterol Hepatol Rev. 2011;7:59–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Yu D, Yang J, Jin M, Zhou B, Shi L, Zhao L, Zhang J, Lin Z, Ren J, Liu L, et al. Fecal Streptococcus alteration is associated with gastric cancer occurrence and liver metastasis. mBio. 2021;12(e0299421) doi: 10.1128/mBio.02994-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Jang S, Hansen LM, Su H, Solnick JV, Cha JH. Host immune response mediates changes in cagA copy number and virulence potential of Helicobacter pylori. Gut Microbes. 2022;14(2044721) doi: 10.1080/19490976.2022.2044721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Jin D, Huang K, Xu M, Hua H, Ye F, Yan J, Zhang G, Wang Y. Deoxycholic acid induces gastric intestinal metaplasia by activating STAT3 signaling and disturbing gastric bile acids metabolism and microbiota. Gut Microbes. 2022;14(2120744) doi: 10.1080/19490976.2022.2120744. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Sah DK, Arjunan A, Lee B, Jung YD. Reactive oxygen species and H. pylori infection: A comprehensive review of their roles in gastric cancer development. Antioxidants (Basel) 2023;12(1712) doi: 10.3390/antiox12091712. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Blackwood BP, Yuan CY, Wood DR, Nicolas JD, Grothaus JS, Hunter CJ. Probiotic Lactobacillus species strengthen intestinal barrier function and tight junction integrity in experimental necrotizing enterocolitis. J Probiotics Health. 2017;5(159) doi: 10.4172/2329-8901.1000159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Devi TB, Devadas K, George M, Gandhimathi A, Chouhan D, Retnakumar RJ, Alexander SM, Varghese J, Dharmaseelan S, Chandrika SK, et al. Low Bifidobacterium abundance in the lower gut microbiota is associated with Helicobacter pylori-related gastric ulcer and gastric cancer. Front Microbiol. 2021;12(631140) doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.631140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Park JY, Seo H, Kang CS, Shin TS, Kim JW, Park JM, Kim JG, Kim YK. Dysbiotic change in gastric microbiome and its functional implication in gastric carcinogenesis. Sci Rep. 2022;12(4285) doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-08288-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Yuan L, Pan L, Wang Y, Zhao J, Fang L, Zhou Y, Xia R, Ma Y, Jiang Z, Xu Z, et al. Characterization of the landscape of the intratumoral microbiota reveals that Streptococcus anginosus increases the risk of gastric cancer initiation and progression. Cell Discov. 2024;10(117) doi: 10.1038/s41421-024-00746-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.May MS, Park H, Moallem DH, Seeram D, Dajiang S, Hibshoosh H, Jamison JK, Uhlemann AC, Manji GA. Low bacterial biomass in human pancreatic cancer and adjacent normal tissue. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;26(140) doi: 10.3390/ijms26010140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Pushalkar S, Hundeyin M, Daley D, Zambirinis CP, Kurz E, Mishra A, Mohan N, Aykut B, Usyk M, Torres LE, et al. The pancreatic cancer microbiome promotes oncogenesis by induction of innate and adaptive immune suppression. Cancer Discov. 2018;8:403–416. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-1134. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Pust MM, Rocha Castellanos DM, Rzasa K, Dame A, Pishchany G, Assawasirisin C, Liss A, Fernandez-Del Castillo C, Xavier RJ. Absence of a pancreatic microbiome in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. Gut. 2024;73:1131–1141. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2023-331012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Bellotti R, Speth C, Adolph TE, Lass-Flörl C, Effenberger M, Öfner D, Maglione M. Micro- and mycobiota dysbiosis in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma development. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13(3431) doi: 10.3390/cancers13143431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Wei X, Mei C, Li X, Xie Y. The unique microbiome and immunity in pancreatic cancer. Pancreas. 2021;50:119–129. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Wang S, Li Y, Xing C, Ding C, Zhang H, Chen L, You L, Dai M, Zhao Y. Tumor microenvironment in chemoresistance, metastasis and immunotherapy of pancreatic cancer. Am J Cancer Res. 2020;10:1937–1953. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Nista EC, Del Gaudio A, Del Vecchio LE, Mezza T, Pignataro G, Piccioni A, Gasbarrini A, Franceschi F, Candelli M. Pancreatic cancer resistance to treatment: The role of microbiota. Biomedicines. 2023;11(157) doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11010157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Saenz C, Fang Q, Gnanasekaran T, Trammell SAJ, Buijink JDA, Pisano P, Wierer M, Moens F, Lengger B, Brejnrod A, Arumugam M. Clostridium scindens secretome suppresses virulence gene expression of Clostridioides difficile in a bile acid-independent manner. Microbiol Spectr. 2023;11(e0393322) doi: 10.1128/spectrum.03933-22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Li W, Chen H, Tang J. Interplay between bile acids and intestinal microbiota: Regulatory mechanisms and therapeutic potential for infections. Pathogens. 2024;13(702) doi: 10.3390/pathogens13080702. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Wu Z, Guo J, Zhang Z, Gao S, Huang M, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Li Q, Li J. Bacteroidetes promotes esophageal squamous carcinoma invasion and metastasis through LPS-mediated TLR4/Myd88/NF-κB pathway and inflammatory changes. Sci Rep. 2024;14(12827) doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-63774-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Greathouse KL, Stone JK, Vargas AJ, Choudhury A, Padgett RN, White JR, Jung A, Harris CC. Co-enrichment of cancer-associated bacterial taxa is correlated with immune cell infiltrates in esophageal tumor tissue. Sci Rep. 2024;14(2574) doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-48862-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Mostafavi Abdolmaleky H, Zhou JR. Gut microbiota dysbiosis, oxidative stress, inflammation, and epigenetic alterations in metabolic diseases. Antioxidants (Basel) 2024;13(985) doi: 10.3390/antiox13080985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Nguyen TT, Ung TT, Li S, Lian S, Xia Y, Park SY, Do Jung Y. Metformin inhibits lithocholic acid-induced interleukin 8 upregulation in colorectal cancer cells by suppressing ROS production and NF-kB activity. Sci Rep. 2019;9(2003) doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-38778-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Sun J, Chen S, Zang D, Sun H, Sun Y, Chen J. Butyrate as a promising therapeutic target in cancer: From pathogenesis to clinic (review) Int J Oncol. 2024;64(44) doi: 10.3892/ijo.2024.5632. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Xiao T, Wu S, Yan C, Zhao C, Jin H, Yan N, Xu J, Wu Y, Li C, Shao Q, Xia S. Butyrate upregulates the TLR4 expression and the phosphorylation of MAPKs and NK-κB in colon cancer cell in vitro. Oncol Lett. 2018;16:4439–4447. doi: 10.3892/ol.2018.9201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Kaźmierczak-Siedlecka K, Marano L, Merola E, Roviello F, Połom K. Sodium butyrate in both prevention and supportive treatment of colorectal cancer. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12(1023806) doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.1023806. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Rodríguez-Enríquez S, Robledo-Cadena DX, Gallardo-Pérez JC, Pacheco-Velázquez SC, Vázquez C, Saavedra E, Vargas-Navarro JL, Blanco-Carpintero BA, Marín-Hernández Á, Jasso-Chávez R, et al. Acetate promotes a differential energy metabolic response in human HCT 116 and COLO 205 colon cancer cells impacting cancer cell growth and invasiveness. Front Oncol. 2021;11(697408) doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.697408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Cornall LM, Mathai ML, Hryciw DH, McAinch AJ. The therapeutic potential of GPR43: A novel role in modulating metabolic health. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2013;70:4759–4770. doi: 10.1007/s00018-013-1419-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Yao T, Dong X, Lv J, Fu L, Li L. Propionate alleviated colitis by modulating iron homeostasis to inhibit ferroptosis and macrophage polarization. Int Immunopharmacol. 2025;162(115151) doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2025.115151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Li Y, Zhao M, Lin Y, Jiang X, Jin L, Ye P, Lu Y, Pei R, Jiang L. Licochalcone A induces mitochondria-dependent apoptosis and interacts with venetoclax in acute myeloid leukemia. Eur J Pharmacol. 2024;968(176418) doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2024.176418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Kozoni V, Tsioulias G, Shiff S, Rigas B. The effect of lithocholic acid on proliferation and apoptosis during the early stages of colon carcinogenesis: differential effect on apoptosis in the presence of a colon carcinogen. Carcinogenesis. 2000;21:999–1005. doi: 10.1093/carcin/21.5.999. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Luu TH, Bard JM, Carbonnelle D, Chaillou C, Huvelin JM, Bobin-Dubigeon C, Nazih H. Lithocholic bile acid inhibits lipogenesis and induces apoptosis in breast cancer cells. Cell Oncol (Dordr) 2018;41:13–24. doi: 10.1007/s13402-017-0353-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Trah J, Arand J, Oh J, Pagerols-Raluy L, Trochimiuk M, Appl B, Heidelbach H, Vincent D, Saleem MA, Reinshagen K, et al. Lithocholic bile acid induces apoptosis in human nephroblastoma cells: A non-selective treatment option. Sci Rep. 2020;10(20349) doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-77436-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Schwarcz S, Kovács P, Nyerges P, Ujlaki G, Sipos A, Uray K, Bai P, Mikó E. The bacterial metabolite, lithocholic acid, has antineoplastic effects in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cell Death Discov. 2024;10(248) doi: 10.1038/s41420-024-02023-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Nguyen TT, Ung TT, Kim NH, Jung YD. Role of bile acids in colon carcinogenesis. World J Clin Cases. 2018;6:577–588. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v6.i13.577. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Carino A, Graziosi L, D'Amore C, Cipriani S, Marchianò S, Marino E, Zampella A, Rende M, Mosci P, Distrutti E, et al. The bile acid receptor GPBAR1 (TGR5) is expressed in human gastric cancers and promotes epithelial-mesenchymal transition in gastric cancer cell lines. Oncotarget. 2016;7:61021–61035. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.10477. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Su X, Gao Y, Yang R. Gut microbiota-derived tryptophan metabolites maintain gut and systemic homeostasis. Cells. 2022;11(2296) doi: 10.3390/cells11152296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Zhao P, Chen Y, Zhou S, Li F. Microbial modulation of tryptophan metabolism links gut microbiota to disease and its treatment. Pharmacol Res. 2025;219(107896) doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2025.107896. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Wang Z, Yin M, Zhou R, Li M, Peng J, Wang Z. Kynurenine promotes the immune escape of colorectal cancer cells via NAT10-mediated ac4C acetylation of PD-L1. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2025;80(100658) doi: 10.1016/j.clinsp.2025.100658. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Dehhaghi M, Kazemi Shariat Panahi H, Heng B, Guillemin GJ. The gut microbiota, kynurenine pathway, and immune system interaction in the development of brain cancer. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2020;8(562812) doi: 10.3389/fcell.2020.562812. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Ren B, Fang Y, Gu M, You L, Zhang T, Zhao Y. Microbiota-metabolism-epigenetics-immunity axis in cancer. Front Immunol. 2024;15(1449912) doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1449912. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Wilton J, de Mendonça FL, Pereira-Castro I, Tellier M, Nojima T, Costa AM, Freitas J, Murphy S, Oliveira MJ, Proudfoot NJ, Moreira A. Pro-inflammatory polarization and colorectal cancer modulate alternative and intronic polyadenylation in primary human macrophages. Front Immunol. 2023;14(1182525) doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1182525. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Li Y, Li Q, Yuan R, Wang Y, Guo C, Wang L. Bifidobacterium breve-derived indole-3-lactic acid ameliorates colitis-associated tumorigenesis by directing the differentiation of immature colonic macrophages. Theranostics. 2024;14:2719–2735. doi: 10.7150/thno.92350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Hunzeker ZE, Zhao L, Kim AM, Parker JM, Zhu Z, Xiao H, Bai Q, Wakefield MR, Fang Y. The role of IL-22 in cancer. Med Oncol. 2024;41(240) doi: 10.1007/s12032-024-02481-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Liu X, Li S, Wang L, Ma K. Microecological regulation in HCC therapy: Gut microbiome enhances ICI treatment. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis. 2024;1870(167230) doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2024.167230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Goodwin AC, Destefano Shields CE, Wu S, Huso DL, Wu X, Murray-Stewart TR, Hacker-Prietz A, Rabizadeh S, Woster PM, Sears CL, Casero RA Jr. Polyamine catabolism contributes to enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis-induced colon tumorigenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:15354–15359. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010203108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Holbert CE, Cullen MT, Casero RA Jr, Stewart TM. Polyamines in cancer: Integrating organismal metabolism and antitumour immunity. Nat Rev Cancer. 2022;22:467–480. doi: 10.1038/s41568-022-00473-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Schlichtner S, Yasinska IM, Klenova E, Abooali M, Lall GS, Berger SM, Ruggiero S, Cholewa D, Milošević M, Gibbs BF, et al. L-Kynurenine participates in cancer immune evasion by downregulating hypoxic signaling in T lymphocytes. Oncoimmunology. 2023;12(2244330) doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2023.2244330. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Snezhkina AV, Krasnov GS, Lipatova AV, Sadritdinova AF, Kardymon OL, Fedorova MS, Melnikova NV, Stepanov OA, Zaretsky AR, Kaprin AD, et al. The dysregulation of polyamine metabolism in colorectal cancer is associated with overexpression of c-Myc and C/EBPβ rather than enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis infection. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2016;2016(2353560) doi: 10.1155/2016/2353560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Braccia DJ, Jiang X, Pop M, Hall AB. The capacity to produce hydrogen sulfide (H2S) via cysteine degradation is ubiquitous in the human gut microbiome. Front Microbiol. 2021;12(705583) doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.705583. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Kumar A, Ali A, Kapardar RK, Dar GM, Nimisha Apurva, Sharma AK, Verma R, Sattar RSA, Ahmad E, et al. Implication of gut microbes and its metabolites in colorectal cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2023;149:441–465. doi: 10.1007/s00432-022-04422-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Blachier F, Andriamihaja M, Larraufie P, Ahn E, Lan A, Kim E. Production of hydrogen sulfide by the intestinal microbiota and epithelial cells and consequences for the colonic and rectal mucosa. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2021;320:G125–G135. doi: 10.1152/ajpgi.00261.2020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Wallace JL, Motta JP, Buret AG. Hydrogen sulfide: An agent of stability at the microbiome-mucosa interface. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2018;314:G143–G149. doi: 10.1152/ajpgi.00249.2017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Lu W, Wen J. Anti-inflammatory effects of hydrogen sulfide in axes between gut and other organs. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2025;42:341–360. doi: 10.1089/ars.2023.0531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Luu M, Schütz B, Lauth M, Visekruna A. The impact of gut microbiota-derived metabolites on the tumor immune microenvironment. Cancers (Basel) 2023;15(1588) doi: 10.3390/cancers15051588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Arya P, Sharma V, Singh P, Thapliyal S, Sharma M. Bacterial endotoxin-lipopolysaccharide role in inflammatory diseases: An overview. Iran J Basic Med Sci. 2025;28:553–564. doi: 10.22038/ijbms.2025.82302.17799. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Li X, Yang Y, Zhang B, Lin X, Fu X, An Y, Zou Y, Wang JX, Wang Z, Yu T. Lactate metabolism in human health and disease. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2022;7(305) doi: 10.1038/s41392-022-01151-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Zi M, Zhang Y, Hu C, Zhang S, Chen J, Yuan L, Cheng X. A literature review on the potential clinical implications of streptococci in gastric cancer. Front Microbiol. 2022;13(1010465) doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1010465. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Fu K, Cheung AHK, Wong CC, Liu W, Zhou Y, Wang F, Huang P, Yuan K, Coker OO, Pan Y, et al. Streptococcus anginosus promotes gastric inflammation, atrophy, and tumorigenesis in mice. Cell. 2024;187:882–896.e17. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2024.01.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Liu H, Pan M, Liu M, Zeng L, Li Y, Huang Z, Guo C, Wang H. Lactate: A rising star in tumors and inflammation. Front Immunol. 2024;15(1496390) doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1496390. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Li L, Wang M, Jiang Z, Yi C, Yi Y. Intratumoral microbial heterogeneity in HCC reveals a potential therapeutic target. JHEP Rep. 2025;7(101538) doi: 10.1016/j.jhepr.2025.101538. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Bi C, Xiao G, Liu C, Yan J, Chen J, Si W, Zhang J, Liu Z. Molecular immune mechanism of intestinal microbiota and their metabolites in the occurrence and development of liver cancer. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021;9(702414) doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.702414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Chen Z, Guan D, Wang Z, Li X, Dong S, Huang J, Zhou W. Microbiota in cancer: Molecular mechanisms and therapeutic interventions. MedComm (2020) 2023;4(e417) doi: 10.1002/mco2.417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Liu H, Xiong X, Zhu W, Wang S, Huang W, Zhu G, Xu H, Yang L. Gut microbial metabolites in cancer immunomodulation. Mol Cancer. 2025;25(8) doi: 10.1186/s12943-025-02521-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Chandra V, McAllister F. Therapeutic potential of microbial modulation in pancreatic cancer. Gut. 2021;70:1419–1425. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319807. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Cao W, Zheng C, Xu X, Jin R, Huang F, Shi M, He Z, Luo Y, Liu L, Liu Z, et al. Clostridium butyricum potentially improves inflammation and immunity through alteration of the microbiota and metabolism of gastric cancer patients after gastrectomy. Front Immunol. 2022;13(1076245) doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1076245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Zhang G, Sun D. The synthesis of the novel Escherichia coli toxin-colibactin and its mechanisms of tumorigenesis of colorectal cancer. Front Microbiol. 2024;15(1501973) doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1501973. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Iftekhar A, Berger H, Bouznad N, Heuberger J, Boccellato F, Dobrindt U, Hermeking H, Sigal M, Meyer TF. Genomic aberrations after short-term exposure to colibactin-producing E. coli transform primary colon epithelial cells. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1003) doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21162-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Guragain M, Schmidt JW, Kalchayanand N, Dickey AM, Bosilevac JM. Characterization of Escherichia coli harboring colibactin genes (clb) isolated from beef production and processing systems. Sci Rep. 2022;12(5305) doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-09274-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.Koppel N, Maini Rekdal V, Balskus EP. Chemical transformation of xenobiotics by the human gut microbiota. Science. 2017;356(eaag2770) doi: 10.1126/science.aag2770. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Katati B, Kovacs S, Njapau H, Kachapulula PW, Zwaan BJ, van Diepeningen AD, Schoustra SE. Aflatoxigenic Aspergillus modulates aflatoxin-B1 levels through an antioxidative mechanism. J Fungi (Basel) 2023;9(690) doi: 10.3390/jof9060690. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Bojić M, Debeljak Ž, Guengerich FP. Principles of xenobiotic metabolism (biotransformation). In: Pharmacogenomics in Clinical Practice. Primorac D, Höppner W and Bach-Rojecky L (eds). Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp13-33, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- 111.Pollet RM, D'Agostino EH, Walton WG, Xu Y, Little MS, Biernat KA, Pellock SJ, Patterson LM, Creekmore BC, Isenberg HN, et al. An atlas of β-glucuronidases in the human intestinal microbiome. Structure. 2017;25:967–977.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2017.05.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112.El Asri A, Zarrouq B, El Kinany K, Bouguenouch L, Ouldim K, El Rhazi K. Associations between nutritional factors and KRAS mutations in colorectal cancer: A systematic review. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(696) doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07189-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113.Zhang M, Yang D, Gold B. The adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) mutation spectra in different anatomical regions of the large intestine in colorectal cancer. Mutat Res. 2018;810:1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2018.04.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114.González-Soltero R, Bailén M, de Lucas B, Ramírez-Goercke MI, Pareja-Galeano H, Larrosa M. Role of oral and gut microbiota in dietary nitrate metabolism and its impact on sports performance. Nutrients. 2020;12(3611) doi: 10.3390/nu12123611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115.Vermeer ITM, Gerrits MM, Moonen EJC, Engels LGJB, Dallinga JW, Kleinjans JCS, van Maanen JMS, Kuipers EJ, Kusters JG. Helicobacter pylori does not mediate the formation of carcinogenic N-nitrosamines. Helicobacter. 2002;7:163–169. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-5378.2002.00076.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116.Elsanhoty RM, Al-Turki IA, Ramadan MF. Application of lactic acid bacteria in removing heavy metals and aflatoxin B1 from contaminated water. Water Sci Technol. 2016;74:625–638. doi: 10.2166/wst.2016.255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117.Assefa S, Köhler G. Intestinal microbiome and metal toxicity. Curr Opin Toxicol. 2020;19:21–27. doi: 10.1016/j.cotox.2019.09.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118.Darbandi A, Navidifar T, Koupaei M, Afifirad R, Nezhad RA, Emamie A, Talebi M, Kakanj M. The effect of the combination of probiotics and heavy metals from various aspects in humans: A systematic review of clinical trial studies. Health Sci Rep. 2025;8(e70521) doi: 10.1002/hsr2.70521. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119.Haiser HJ, Gootenberg DB, Chatman K, Sirasani G, Balskus EP, Turnbaugh PJ. Predicting and manipulating cardiac drug inactivation by the human gut bacterium Eggerthella lenta. Science. 2013;341:295–298. doi: 10.1126/science.1235872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120.Ting NLN, Lau HCH, Yu J. Cancer pharmacomicrobiomics: Targeting microbiota to optimise cancer therapy outcomes. Gut. 2022;71:1412–1425. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-326264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121.Heshiki Y, Vazquez-Uribe R, Li J, Ni Y, Quainoo S, Imamovic L, Li J, Sørensen M, Chow BKC, Weiss GJ, et al. Predictable modulation of cancer treatment outcomes by the gut microbiota. Microbiome. 2020;8(28) doi: 10.1186/s40168-020-00811-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122.Weber R, Fleming V, Hu X, Nagibin V, Groth C, Altevogt P, Utikal J, Umansky V. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells hinder the anti-cancer activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Front Immunol. 2018;9(1310) doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01310. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123.Niu H, Zhou M, Zogona D, Xing Z, Wu T, Chen R, Cui D, Liang F, Xu X. Akkermansia muciniphila: A potential candidate for ameliorating metabolic diseases. Front Immunol. 2024;15(1370658) doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1370658. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124.Zhang S, Yang Y, Weng W, Guo B, Cai G, Ma Y, Cai S. Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes chemoresistance to 5-fluorouracil by upregulation of BIRC3 expression in colorectal cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2019;38(14) doi: 10.1186/s13046-018-0985-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125.Hussain S. On a new proposed mechanism of 5-fluorouracil-mediated cytotoxicity. Trends Cancer. 2020;6:365–368. doi: 10.1016/j.trecan.2020.02.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126.Vande Voorde J, Vervaeke P, Liekens S, Balzarini J. Mycoplasma hyorhinis-encoded cytidine deaminase efficiently inactivates cytosine-based anticancer drugs. FEBS Open Bio. 2015;5:634–639. doi: 10.1016/j.fob.2015.07.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127.Ratiner K, Ciocan D, Abdeen SK, Elinav E. Utilization of the microbiome in personalized medicine. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2024;22:291–308. doi: 10.1038/s41579-023-00998-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128.Nakatsu G, Andreeva N, MacDonald MH, Garrett WS. Interactions between diet and gut microbiota in cancer. Nat Microbiol. 2024;9:1644–1654. doi: 10.1038/s41564-024-01736-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129.Cani PD, Depommier C, Derrien M, Everard A, de Vos WM. Akkermansia muciniphila: Paradigm for next-generation beneficial microorganisms. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;19:625–637. doi: 10.1038/s41575-022-00631-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130.Myhrstad MCW, Tunsjø H, Charnock C, Telle-Hansen VH. Dietary fiber, gut microbiota, and metabolic regulation-current status in human randomized trials. Nutrients. 2020;12(859) doi: 10.3390/nu12030859. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131.Yang Y, Xia Y, Chen H, Hong L, Feng J, Yang J, Yang Z, Shi C, Wu W, Gao R, et al. The effect of perioperative probiotics treatment for colorectal cancer: Short-term outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Oncotarget. 2016;7:8432–8440. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.7045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132.Miller LE, Zimmermann AK, Ouwehand AC. Contemporary meta-analysis of short-term probiotic consumption on gastrointestinal transit. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:5122–5131. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i21.5122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133.Feng K, Ren F, Wang X. Association between oral microbiome and seven types of cancers in East Asian population: A two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis. Front Mol Biosci. 2023;10(1327893) doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2023.1327893. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134.Hsieh YY, Tung SY, Pan HY, Yen CW, Xu HW, Lin YJ, Deng YF, Hsu WT, Wu CS, Li C. Increased abundance of Clostridium and Fusobacterium in gastric microbiota of patients with gastric cancer in Taiwan. Sci Rep. 2018;8(158) doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-18596-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135.Silva-García O, Valdez-Alarcón JJ, Baizabal-Aguirre VM. Wnt/β-catenin signaling as a molecular target by pathogenic bacteria. Front Immunol. 2019;10(2135) doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.02135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136.Dadgar-Zankbar L, Shariati A, Bostanghadiri N, Elahi Z, Mirkalantari S, Razavi S, Kamali F, Darban-Sarokhalil D. Evaluation of enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis correlation with the expression of cellular signaling pathway genes in Iranian patients with colorectal cancer. Infect Agent Cancer. 2023;18(48) doi: 10.1186/s13027-023-00523-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137.Yu Z, Li Y, Wang J. Mesalazine suppresses colorectal cancer liver metastasis via the HDAC3/Wnt/β-catenin axis through downregulating Bacteroides fragilis abundance. APMIS. 2025;133(e70078) doi: 10.1111/apm.70078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138.Grąt M, Wronka KM, Krasnodębski M, Masior Ł, Lewandowski Z, Kosińska I, Grąt K, Stypułkowski J, Rejowski S, Wasilewicz M, et al. Profile of gut microbiota associated with the presence of hepatocellular cancer in patients with liver cirrhosis. Transplant Proc. 2016;48:1687–1691. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2016.01.077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139.Ferreira-Halder CV, Faria AVDS, Andrade SS. Action and function of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii in health and disease. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;31:643–648. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2017.09.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140.Zhang W, Xu X, Cai L, Cai X. Dysbiosis of the gut microbiome in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Sci Rep. 2023;13(7797) doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-34765-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141.Hexun Z, Miyake T, Maekawa T, Mori H, Yasukawa D, Ohno M, Nishida A, Andoh A, Tani M. High abundance of Lachnospiraceae in the human gut microbiome is related to high immunoscores in advanced colorectal cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2023;72:315–326. doi: 10.1007/s00262-022-03256-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142.Castro PR, Bittencourt LFF, Larochelle S, Andrade SP, Mackay CR, Slevin M, Moulin VJ, Barcelos LS. GPR43 regulates sodium butyrate-induced angiogenesis and matrix remodeling. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2021;320:H1066–H1079. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00515.2019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143.Tacconi E, Palma G, De Biase D, Luciano A, Barbieri M, de Nigris F, Bruzzese F. Microbiota effect on trimethylamine N-oxide production: From cancer to fitness-A practical preventing recommendation and therapies. Nutrients. 2023;15(563) doi: 10.3390/nu15030563. [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
Not applicable.


