Skip to main content
ecancermedicalscience logoLink to ecancermedicalscience
. 2018 Sep 5;12:865. doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2018.865

Colorectal carcinogenesis: an archetype of gut microbiota–host interaction

James L Alexander 1, Alasdair J Scott 1, Anna L Pouncey 1, Julian Marchesi 1, James Kinross 1, Julian Teare 1
PMCID: PMC6145524  PMID: 30263056

Abstract

Sporadic colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a major cause of worldwide mortality. Epidemiological evidence of markedly increased risk in populations that migrate to Western countries, or adopt their lifestyle, suggests that CRC is a disease whose aetiology is defined primarily by interactions between the host and his environment. The gut microbiome sits directly at this interface and is now increasingly recognised as a modulator of colorectal carcinogenesis. Bacteria such as Fusobacterium nucleatum and Escherichia coli (E. Coli) are found in abundance in patients with CRC and have been shown in experimental studies to promote neoplasia. A whole armamentarium of bacteria-derived oncogenic mechanisms has been defined, including the subversion of apoptosis and the production of genotoxins and pro-inflammatory factors. But the microbiota may also be protective: for example, they are implicated in the metabolism of dietary fibre to produce butyrate, a short chain fatty acid, which is anti-inflammatory and anti-carcinogenic. Indeed, although our understanding of this immensely complex, highly individualised and multi-faceted relationship is expanding rapidly, many questions remain: Can we define friends and foes, and drivers and passengers? What are the critical functions of the microbiota in the context of colorectal neoplasia?

Keywords: colorectal cancer, microbiota, fusobacterium, metabolic function, interaction

Introduction

By recent estimates, almost a quarter of a million Europeans are diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) annually, and incidence is rising [1]. Perhaps, more concerning, since 1998, in contrast to the declines seen in older patients, younger adults have experienced an apparent increase in the incidence of CRC [2]. Indeed, although CRC is predominantly a disease of later age in the West (median age at diagnosis approximately 70 years [3]), the age-specific relative risk has been increasing in younger generations over recent decades, meaning that adults born in the USA in 1990 have double the risk of colon cancer and quadruple the risk of rectal cancer compared to those born in 1950 [4].

Traditional models of cancer aetiology have focussed on understanding how mammalian genetic susceptibility combines with risk factors such as smoking to drive carcinogenesis. As a contributor to disease pathogenesis, the gut microbiota (namely, the bacteria, viruses, archaea and eukaryotic organisms that inhabit the human gastrointestinal tract) had largely hidden in the blind spot of the medical research community until the last 10 years. This was fundamentally a technological issue: the culture-based methods previously used to study bacteria (still the mainstay of clinical microbiology laboratories) are not well suited to the large-scale analysis of the cornucopia microorganisms present in the large intestine. But with the advent of next-generation sequencing, there has been a paradigm shift in our ability to catalogue and characterise this ecosystem [5]. There has followed a rapid proliferation of interest in this so-called ‘forgotten organ’ and the development of the Human Microbiome Project, which attempted to database the microbiota in much the same way that geneticists had done with the human genome years earlier [6]. In this review, we discuss how the rapid development in the knowledge of the gut microbiome is providing novel insights into colorectal carcinogenesis.

Diet, lifestyle, the gut microbiome and CRC

CRC rates vary by up to 10-fold around the world. The majority of cases and deaths occur in countries with high or very high human development indices [7]. Low- and middle-income countries transitioning quickly towards a more westernised society and economy exhibit the starkest increases in incidence [8]. Examples include Brazil and Bulgaria, with average annual percentage changes in the incidence of 7.2 and 3.6, respectively [7]. Given the rapidity of this trend, there is a compelling argument for the pre-eminent contribution of lifestyle factors over host genetics in the pathogenesis of this disease. Indeed, family history of CRC accounts for only a small proportion of the variation [9]. Established risk factors include alcohol [10], lack of physical activity [11], smoking [12], obesity [13] and perhaps most importantly, diet.

The observation that diet might influence the risk of gastrointestinal diseases such as CRC is historic—Burkitt made the link to dietary fibre depletion in the 1970s [14]; although the existing data with regard to fibre intake are somewhat conflicting [15, 16]. There is now a body of evidence pointing to high intake of red and processed meat as an integral player in CRC risk [1720].

Compelling evidence for diet’s importance comes from migrant studies which have shown that within one generation, immigrant populations adopt the colon cancer incidence of the host Western population [21]. Despite this observation, genome-wide association studies have required very large cohorts of subjects to demonstrate the significant linkage between loci that influence CRC risk and diet, suggesting that another factor is at play [22, 23]. The microbiota have been implicated in the metabolism of red meat derivatives and the consequent production of choline, trimethylamine and hydrogen sulphide, all of which may be deleterious to host health [2426]. Much work has centred on the microbial metabolism of fibre, which is relatively deficient in the Western diet [27]. There is considerable evidence that fibre fermentation products, such as the short chain fatty acids (SCFAs), which are essential energy sources for normal colonocytes, also dampen inflammatory processes and are anti-carcinogenic [28, 29]. For example, one such SCFA, butyrate, has been shown to down-regulate the canonical Wnt-signalling pathway [30], inhibit cancerous colonocyte proliferation through histone deacetylase inhibition [31] and induce apoptosis [32]. Studies have shown a reduction in butyrate-producing phyla in the microbiomes of animal models and patients with CRC [3335].

Studies comparing African Americans and rural Africans perhaps best support the role of the gut microbiota as a mediator of diet-induced cancer risk [36]. The work of O’Keefe and co-workers demonstrated that the diets of African Americans living in Pittsburgh were dominated by fat and processed meat, in contrast to those of rural South Africans, which were dominated by fibre [37]. African Americans, who are at high risk of CRC, have colons predominated by Prevotella species, while rural Africans, with low risk of CRC, are colonised by Bacteroides species. When these diets were switched, rapid reciprocal shifts in the microbiota and metabolomes of the groups were accompanied by marked changes in mucosal biomarkers of cancer risk. The conclusion from this work is that a change in bacterial co-occurrences across niche-specific microbial networks associated with symbiotic metabolism of dietary nutrients pre-conditions the gut into either a pro-oncogenic or protective state. The relative absence of Fusobacterium nucleatum (an organism with links to CRC which we will discuss in greater detail) in CRCs from patients with high-fibre diets supports this hypothesis [38].

In addition to dietary patterns, migration changes many other aspects of the environment and there is now evidence that the microbiome is at least modified by CRC risk factors such as smoking [39, 40], exercise [41, 42] and alcohol [43]. There is also evidence that differences in host genotype affect the carbohydrate landscape of the distal gut and these in turn interact with the diet to alter the composition and function of resident microbes in a diet-dependent manner. Therefore, it is possible that patients genetically predisposed to CRC have a modified metabolically active microbiome, which is not only determined by their genes but also by their family environment, dietary habits and lifestyle choices.

Inflammation, obesity, CRC and the microbiota

A unifying issue in the pathogenesis of CRC is the presence of persistent low-grade inflammation. This is supported by evidence that cancer risk may be reduced by greater than a quarter by anti-inflammatory drugs [44]. A large proportion of morbidly obese individuals (30%–70%) gets CRC, and obesity is characterised by systemic low-level inflammation [45]. Metataxonomic studies have demonstrated elevated numbers of Firmicutes and decreased levels of Bacteroidetes and a reduced microbial diversity and genetic abundance in obese individuals [46]. It is therefore feasible that cancer in the colon is driven by particular microbes that are fostered in an obese-related inflammatory environment.

Bariatric surgery presents a useful opportunity for studying the impact of the gut microbiota on host metabolic function, and gastric bypass surgery has a profound impact on the distal microbiome construct and its metabolic function [47, 48]. It is interesting to note, therefore, the paradox in patients undergoing bariatric surgical procedures, where epidemiological evidence suggests the risk of CRC in fact increases [49] and patients have poorer outcomes [50]. Evidence from post gastric bypass murine models has also demonstrated that the faecal stream, which is partly a product of microbiota-mediated metabolism of dietary substrates, is highly genotoxic [51]. This suggests that the relationship between obesity and CRC may be modulated by the microbiota, and that surgical bariatric interventions may inadvertently alter an individual’s CRC risk by driving the microbiota towards a pro-carcinogenic state.

The case for an oncogenic driver species in CRC

The concept that microbes might be pathogenic mediators of neoplasia is, of course, not novel. In the 1980s, Helicobacter pylori was identified in the stomach of patients with gastritis and peptic ulceration, providing a link between the bacterium and gastric cancer [52]. The initial hostile response of the scientific community to this, now well-established, association is perhaps instructive [53]. The human papillomavirus virus is relatable to the vast majority of cervical cancers, as well as some anal, vulvar and oropharyngeal neoplasms [54]. Liver fluke infections are strongly associated with cholangiocarcinoma in East Asia [55, 56] and chronic infection with the parasite Shistosoma haematobium predisposes carriers to urothelial malignancy [57]. With the colon hosting the great majority of microbiota residing in the human body [58], it is only logical that investigators have sought to make similar discoveries with regard to CRC.

With the examples from other body sites in mind, research to date on the gut microbiota has attempted to define specific microbial candidates that serve as ‘alpha bacteria’ or pro-oncogenic driver species in CRC [59]. On this basis, the evidence is now available for a stable of bacteria with mechanistic plausibility as aetiological agents in CRC (Table 1 and Figure 1).

Table 1. Bacteria with evidence of pro-oncogenic mechanisms in experimental studies of CRC.

Bacterium Proposed pro-oncogenic mechanisms
Streptococcus gallolyticus [9597]
  • COX-2 mediated inflammatory response

  • Beta-catenin dependent cell proliferation

Enterococcus faecalis [98, 99]
  • Bystander effect: Induction of mucosal macrophages to produce clastogens that cause DNA damage through free radical and superoxide production

E. Coli [76, 78, 100, 101]
  • Toxin production: genotoxin Colibactin breaks double-stranded DNA

  • Genotoxicity induced by OMVs

  • Depletion of host mismatch repair proteins via bacterially secreted EspF effector protein

Bacteroides fragilis [102105]
  • Inflammatory stimulus leads to increased reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage resulting from spermine oxidase polyamine catabolism

  • Stat3 activation of mucosal IL-17 response

Fusobacterium nucleatum [61, 68, 69, 72]
  • Modulation of E-cadherin/B-catenin signalling via FadA adhesion

  • Recruitment of proinflammatory myeloid cells conducive to tumour progression

  • Tumour-immune evasion via Fap2 protein inhibition of NK cell cytotoxicity

Peptostreptococcus anaerobius [106]
  • Increased levels of reactive oxygen species promote cholesterol synthesis and cell proliferation

Helicobacter hepaticus [107]
  • Up-regulation of tissue inducible Nitric Oxide Synthase and TNF-alpha

Figure 1. Gut microbiota and their mechanistic links to colorectal carcinogenesis.

Figure 1.

The gram-negative anaerobe Fusobacterium nucleatum has been associated with carcinomas and adenomas of the colon and rectum in a number of human studies [6065]. F. nucleatum was typically regarded as an oral commensal bacterium and has a relatively low abundance in the healthy human colon [66]. It has long been recognised as one of the principal pathogens in gingivitis and periodontitis, and it is from this setting that biologically plausible mechanisms of colorectal oncogenesis first emerged [67]. In an in vitro model, its fadA adhesin was shown to bind to E-cadherin on CRC cell lines resulting in invasion by the organism and activation of the β-catenin/Wnt signalling cascade with consequent stimulation of cell proliferation [68]. Furthermore, fadA gene and protein expression were increased in adenomas and adenocarcinomas compared to healthy mucosa from non-tumorous individuals, and correlated with significantly raised expression of Wnt genes, consistent with the in vitro data.

Further support for a tumorigenic role of F. nucleatum is provided by a series of experiments in which ApcMin/+ mice, which develop gastrointestinal tumours, were exposed to a F. nucleatum strain isolated from a patient with inflammatory bowel disease. Exposure resulted in a significant increase in the numbers of colonic tumours and, in accord with human data, F. nucleatum was enriched in tumour tissue relative to adjacent normal mucosa [61]. Interestingly, F. nucleatum did not induce colitis in the ApcMin/+ mice, which contrasts with the known mechanism of accelerated tumorigenesis induced by enterotoxigenic B. fragilis in the same model. Rather, the authors found that F. nucleatum recruited tumour-permissive immune cells to the murine tumour microenvironment, which potentiated tumour progression. Similarly, the expression of relevant immune cell marker genes positively correlated with Fusobacterium spp. abundance in human CRC specimens. In another study, the F. nucleatum Fap2 ectodomain inhibited human natural killer (NK) cell anti-tumour toxicity via the TIGIT receptor which is expressed on all T cells, permitting evasion of tumour cells from immune surveillance [69]. F. nucleatum has also been shown to activate TLR-4 signalling to MYD88, leading to activation of Nuclear Factor-kB via increased expression of microRNA21 (miR21) [70]. Collectively, these experimental data support an association between F. nucleatum and human CRC and provide plausible mechanisms for promoting oncogenesis directly, via activation of Wnt and, indirectly, by dampening of host anti-tumour immune responses.

Importantly, there is now evidence from human populations that the presence of Fusobacteria may be of prognostic importance, as it is associated with CIMP positivity, TP53 wild-type, hMLH1 methylation positivity, MSI and CHD7/8 mutation positivity [71]. Mima and co-workers found that F. nucleatum was associated with a lower density of CD3+ T cells, which have an important role in the anti-CRC adaptive immune response, conferring better prognosis [72]. The same investigators also found that the amount of F. nucleatum DNA in CRC tissue is associated with shorter patient survival [73] and intriguingly, there is evidence emerging that the organism persists and migrates in metastatic deposits, distant from the primary tumour [74].

E. Coli is another common organism found to be over-represented on CRC mucosa [75]. E. coli promotes tumour growth, both in vitro and in a xenograft model, via its genotoxin colibactin [76] and expresses genes that are known to have oncogenic relevance, purporting to M-cell translocatory, angiogenic and genotoxic properties [77]. Both avirulent and pathogenic strains of colonic E. coli are able to exert this genotoxic influence via outer membrane vesicles (OMVs) [78]. This is important as the colonisation of E. coli grown from colonic mucosa is a poor prognostic factor for colon cancer and it correlates with the TNM stage. Specifically, pathogenic cyclomodulin-positive E. coli strains are more prevalent on the mucosa of patients with stages III/IV than those with stage I colon cancer [79].

Future perspectives: accounting for the complexity of the CRC microbiome

As we have seen, the majority of existing research on the gut microbiota in CRC has fallen into two broad categories: (1) cataloguing exercises which seek to describe colonic ecological composition and thus make inferences about bacteria which may be over-represented in the disease state and (2) reductive science which identifies and thoroughly investigates (using in vitro and/or animal models) a particular bacterium (e.g. F. nucleatum) with putative pro-neoplastic capabilities. Both of these approaches have their drawbacks. The former, in the absence of complementary techniques such as metabolomics, fails to provide insights on microbiota function. The latter is likely to underestimate the complexity of the diverse microbial communities co-existing in the developing tumour micro-environment [80]. It is perhaps telling that F. nucleatum, the pathobiont which has aroused most attention in CRC, appears to be found in only 13% of human CRCs [73]. Moreover, attempts to replicate the findings of earlier studies have demonstrated contradictory results regarding the prevalence and abundance of F. nucleatum in CRC [81].

In addition, concerns remain about the validity of existing findings in this field of research. Early studies suffered from a lack of consistency in sampling protocols, differing analytical methodologies and small numbers of patients. There was often a paucity of adequate clinical phenotyping data and an unrealistic supposition that polyps and CRCs are pathologically homogeneous. Although some of these issues are better addressed by contemporary studies [82, 83], the worry lingers that conclusions may be skewed by unappreciated confounding factors, including ethnicity, comorbidity and medication. Furthermore, it is probable that the circumstances in which samples are taken will also influence the ecological characteristics of the CRC microbiome and there remains considerable disagreement about the best methods for sampling the microbiota, with mucosal biopsies, stool and rectal swabs all providing differing information [84, 85]. Finally, the elephant in the room for all cancer microbiome studies is the issue of separating causation from association [86]. The solution to this problem has to include large, prospective, cohort studies with longitudinal sampling of participants prior to the development of the disease, a process that will take decades. The arguments in favour of this approach are being made ever more vociferously [87].

Even with better human studies, given the enormous inter-individual variability and diversity of composition and function of the colonic microbiota, a more sophisticated analytical approach is clearly required. An attempt to conceptualise this complexity is provided by the driver-passenger model [88]. It postulates that genetically susceptible individuals might be colonised by a cocktail of pathogenic bacteria, which can cause inflammation, increase cell proliferation and produce genotoxic substrates, thus driving the initiation of early neoplastic lesions and contributing to the accumulation of genetic mutations as lesions progress (Figure 2). Furthermore, as the tumour develops, with associated changes in the metabolic milieu of the tumour microenvironment, these pathogenic driver species may be out-competed by opportunistic passengers, which thrive in the altered ecological niche. This model too is in all probability overly simplistic: perhaps, there are active passengers, which facilitate local invasion and distant metabolic spread.

Figure 2. The driver-passenger model. Taken from ‘A bacterial driver-passenger model for CRC: beyond the usual suspects’. Tjalsma et al [88] Nature Reviews Microbiology (2012).

Figure 2.

Critically, it remains the case that the function and metabolic niche requirements of bacterial communities in diseases such as CRC are largely unknown. A range of ‘omics’ techniques are now being developed to address this knowledge shortfall [89]. These include metatranscriptomics and metaproteomics, which go some way to bridge the gap, but it is metabolomics, which seeks to identify and quantify all of the metabolites present in a sample, that emerges as the most suitable application to integrate with studies of the microbiome [90].

Conclusion

With advances in computational and systems medicine, investigators are producing novel insights into colonic gene-environment interactions [91] and data are now emerging suggesting that the colonic microbiota plays a vital symbiotic role in determining the metabolic milieu of the tumour micro-environment [92]. We now have the opportunity to mine extremely large parallel sets of clinical, epidemiological, dietary, pathological and omics data to streamline the direction of ongoing cancer and microbiome research. This approach has already borne fruit in the discipline of molecular pathological epidemiology [93, 94]. Future studies must integrate multi-omics human datasets and leverage their discoveries to guide relevant and suitably refined mechanistic investigation.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge funding from Imperial College Biomedical Research Centre, The Royal Marsden Biomedical Research Centre, Bowel and Cancer Research and Cancer Research UK.

References

  • 1.Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(6):1374–1403. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bailey CE, Hu CY, You YN, et al. Increasing disparities in the age-related incidences of colon and rectal cancers in the United States, 1975–2010. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(1):17–22. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.1756. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Center MM, Jemal A, Smith RA, et al. Worldwide variations in colorectal cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(6):366–378. doi: 10.3322/caac.20038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Siegel RL, Fedewa SA, Anderson WF, et al. Colorectal cancer incidence patterns in the United States, 1974–2013. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(8) doi: 10.1093/jnci/djw322. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Frank DN, Pace NR. Gastrointestinal microbiology enters the metagenomics era. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2008;24(1):4–10. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0b013e3282f2b0e8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cho I, Blaser MJ. The human microbiome: at the interface of health and disease. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13(4):260–270. doi: 10.1038/nrg3182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Arnold M, Sierra MS, Laversanne M, et al. Global patterns and trends in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Gut. 2017;66(4):683–691. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310912. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bray F, Soerjomataram I. The changing global burden of cancer: transitions in human development and implications for cancer prevention and control. In: Gelband H, Jha P, Sankaranarayanan R, et al., editors. Cancer: Disease Control Priorities. 3rd. vol 3. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank; 2015. pp. 101–121. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Taylor DP, Burt RW, Williams MS, et al. Population-based family history-specific risks for colorectal cancer: a constellation approach. Gastroenterology. 2010;138(3):877–885. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.11.044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cai S, Li Y, Ding Y, et al. Alcohol drinking and the risk of colorectal cancer death: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2014;23(6):532–539. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000076. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wu AH, Paganini-Hill A, Ross RK, et al. Alcohol, physical activity and other risk factors for colorectal cancer: a prospective study. Br J Cancer. 1987;55(6):687–694. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1987.140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Botteri E, Iodice S, Bagnardi V, et al. Smoking and colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(23):2765–2778. doi: 10.1001/jama.2008.839. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Frezza EE, Wachtel MS, Chiriva-Internati M. Influence of obesity on the risk of developing colon cancer. Gut. 2006;55(2):285–291. doi: 10.1136/gut.2005.073163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Burkitt DP, Walker AR, Painter NS. Effect of dietary fibre on stools and the transit-times, and its role in the causation of disease. Lancet (London, England) 1972;2(7792):1408–1412. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(72)92974-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Asano T, McLeod RS. Dietary fibre for the prevention of colorectal adenomas and carcinomas. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(2):Cd003430. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Yao Y, Suo T, Andersson R, et al. Dietary fibre for the prevention of recurrent colorectal adenomas and carcinomas. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2017;1:Cd003430. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003430.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bouvard V, Loomis D, Guyton KZ, et al. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(16):1599–1600. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Carr PR, Walter V, Brenner H, et al. Meat subtypes and their association with colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cancer. 2016;138(2):293–302. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Norat T, Aune D, Chan D, et al. Fruits and vegetables: updating the epidemiologic evidence for the WCRF/AICR lifestyle recommendations for cancer prevention. Cancer Treat Res. 2014;159:35–50. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-38007-5_3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Gonzalez CA, Riboli E. Diet and cancer prevention: contributions from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(14):2555–2562. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.07.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Le Marchand L, Kolonel LN. [Cancer in Japanese migrants to Hawaii: interaction between genes and environment] Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 1992;40(6):425–430. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Houlston RS, Cheadle J, Dobbins SE, et al. Meta-analysis of three genome-wide association studies identifies susceptibility loci for colorectal cancer at 1q41, 3q26.2, 12q13.13 and 20q13.33. Nat Gen. 2010;42(11):973–977. doi: 10.1038/ng.670. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Figueiredo JC, Hsu L, Hutter CM, et al. Genome-wide diet-gene interaction analyses for risk of colorectal cancer. PLoS Genet. 2014;10(4):e1004228. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Koeth RA, Wang Z, Levison BS, et al. Intestinal microbiota metabolism of L-carnitine, a nutrient in red meat, promotes atherosclerosis. Nat Med. 2013;19(5):576–585. doi: 10.1038/nm.3145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Carbonero F, Benefiel AC, Alizadeh-Ghamsari AH, et al. Microbial pathways in colonic sulfur metabolism and links with health and disease. Front Physiol. 2012;3:448. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2012.00448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Craciun S, Balskus EP. Microbial conversion of choline to trimethylamine requires a glycyl radical enzyme. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(52):21307–21312. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1215689109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.O’Neil CE, Zanovec M, Cho SS, et al. Whole grain and fiber consumption are associated with lower body weight measures in US adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2004. Nutr Res. 2010;30(12):815–822. doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2010.10.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Vipperla K, O’Keefe SJ. The microbiota and its metabolites in colonic mucosal health and cancer risk. Nutr Clin Pract. 2012;27(5):624–635. doi: 10.1177/0884533612452012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Smith PM, Howitt MR, Panikov N, et al. The microbial metabolites, short-chain fatty acids, regulate colonic Treg cell homeostasis. Science. 2013;341(6145):569–573. doi: 10.1126/science.1241165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bordonaro M, Lazarova DL, Sartorelli AC. Butyrate and Wnt signaling: a possible solution to the puzzle of dietary fiber and colon cancer risk? Cell Cycle. 2008;7(9):1178–1183. doi: 10.4161/cc.7.9.5818. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Donohoe DR, Collins LB, Wali A, et al. The Warburg effect dictates the mechanism of butyrate-mediated histone acetylation and cell proliferation. Mol Cell. 2012;48(4):612–626. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.08.033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bultman SJ. Molecular pathways: gene-environment interactions regulating dietary fiber induction of proliferation and apoptosis via butyrate for cancer prevention. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(4):799–803. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-2483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zhu Q, Jin Z, Wu W, et al. Analysis of the intestinal lumen microbiota in an animal model of colorectal cancer. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e90849. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090849. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wang T, Cai G, Qiu Y, et al. Structural segregation of gut microbiota between colorectal cancer patients and healthy volunteers. ISME J. 2012;6(2):320–329. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2011.109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Wu N, Yang X, Zhang R, et al. Dysbiosis signature of fecal microbiota in colorectal cancer patients. Microb Ecol. 2013;66(2):462–470. doi: 10.1007/s00248-013-0245-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ou J, Carbonero F, Zoetendal EG, et al. Diet, microbiota, and microbial metabolites in colon cancer risk in rural Africans and African Americans. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98(1):111–120. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.112.056689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.O’Keefe SJ, Li JV, Lahti L. Fat, fibre and cancer risk in African Americans and rural Africans. Nat Commun. 2015;6:6342. doi: 10.1038/ncomms7342. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Mehta RS, Nishihara R, Cao Y, et al. Association of dietary patterns with risk of colorectal cancer subtypes classified by fusobacterium nucleatum in tumor tissue. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(7):921–927. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Biedermann L, Zeitz J, Mwinyi J, et al. Smoking cessation induces profound changes in the composition of the intestinal microbiota in humans. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e59260. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Opstelten JL, Plassais J, van Mil SW, et al. Gut microbial diversity is reduced in smokers with Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2016;22(9):2070–2077. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Petriz BA, Castro AP, Almeida JA, et al. Exercise induction of gut microbiota modifications in obese, non-obese and hypertensive rats. BMC Genomics. 2014;15:511. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Clarke SF, Murphy EF, O’Sullivan O, et al. Exercise and associated dietary extremes impact on gut microbial diversity. Gut. 2014;63(12):1913–1920. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306541. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bull-Otterson L, Feng W, Kirpich I, et al. Metagenomic analyses of alcohol induced pathogenic alterations in the intestinal microbiome and the effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG treatment. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e53028. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Cooper K, Squires H, Carroll C, et al. Chemoprevention of colorectal cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(32):1–206. doi: 10.3310/hta14320. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Lumeng CN, Saltiel AR. Inflammatory links between obesity and metabolic disease. J Clin Invest. 2011;121(6):2111–2117. doi: 10.1172/JCI57132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Le Chatelier E, Nielsen T, Qin J, et al. Richness of human gut microbiome correlates with metabolic markers. Nature. 2013;500(7464):541–546. doi: 10.1038/nature12506. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Li JV, Ashrafian H, Bueter M, et al. Metabolic surgery profoundly influences gut microbial-host metabolic cross-talk. Gut. 2011;60(9):1214–1223. doi: 10.1136/gut.2010.234708. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Palleja A, Kashani A, Allin KH, et al. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery of morbidly obese patients induces swift and persistent changes of the individual gut microbiota. Genome Med. 2016;8(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s13073-016-0312-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ostlund MP, Lu Y, Lagergren J. Risk of obesity-related cancer after obesity surgery in a population-based cohort study. Ann Surg. 2010;252(6):972–976. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e33778. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Tao W, Konings P, Hull MA, et al. Colorectal cancer prognosis following obesity surgery in a population-based cohort study. Obes Surg. 2017;27(5):1233–1239. doi: 10.1007/s11695-016-2431-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Li JV, Reshat R, Wu Q, et al. Experimental bariatric surgery in rats generates a cytotoxic chemical environment in the gut contents. Front Microbiol. 2011;2:183. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2011.00183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Marshall BJ, Warren JR. Unidentified curved bacilli in the stomach of patients with gastritis and peptic ulceration. Lancet. 1984;1(8390):1311–1315. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(84)91816-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Uemura N, Okamoto S, Yamamoto S, et al. Helicobacter pylori infection and the development of gastric cancer. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(11):784–789. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa001999. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Lowy DR, Schiller JT. Reducing HPV-associated cancer globally. Cancer Prev Res. 2012;5(1):18–23. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-11-0542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Honjo S, Srivatanakul P, Sriplung H, et al. Genetic and environmental determinants of risk for cholangiocarcinoma via Opisthorchis viverrini in a densely infested area in Nakhon Phanom, northeast Thailand. Int J Cancer. 2005;117(5):854–860. doi: 10.1002/ijc.21146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Lim MK, Ju YH, Franceschi S, et al. Clonorchis sinensis infection and increasing risk of cholangiocarcinoma in the Republic of Korea. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2006;75(1):93–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Mostafa MH, Sheweita SA, O’Connor PJ. Relationship between schistosomiasis and bladder cancer. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1999;12(1):97–111. doi: 10.1128/cmr.12.1.97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Sommer F, Backhed F. The gut microbiota–masters of host development and physiology. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2013;11(4):227–238. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Sears CL, Pardoll DM. Perspective: alpha-bugs, their microbial partners, and the link to colon cancer. J Infect Dis. 2011;203(3):306–311. doi: 10.1093/jinfdis/jiq061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Marchesi JR, Dutilh BE, Hall N, et al. Towards the human colorectal cancer microbiome. PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e20447. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Kostic AD, Chun E, Robertson L, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum potentiates intestinal tumorigenesis and modulates the tumor-immune microenvironment. Cell Host Microbe. 2013;14(2):207–215. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2013.07.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Castellarin M, Warren RL, Freeman JD, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum infection is prevalent in human colorectal carcinoma. Genome Res. 2012;22(2):299–306. doi: 10.1101/gr.126516.111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.McCoy AN, Araujo-Perez F, Azcarate-Peril A, et al. Fusobacterium is associated with colorectal adenomas. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e53653. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053653. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Wong SH, Kwong TNY, Chow TC, et al. Quantitation of faecal Fusobacterium improves faecal immunochemical test in detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia. Gut. 2017;66(8):1441–1448. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Kostic AD, Gevers D, Pedamallu CS, et al. Genomic analysis identifies association of Fusobacterium with colorectal carcinoma. Genome Res. 2012;22(2):292–298. doi: 10.1101/gr.126573.111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Eckburg PB, Bik EM, Bernstein CN, et al. Diversity of the human intestinal microbial flora. Science. 2005;308(5728):1635–1638. doi: 10.1126/science.1110591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Moore WE, Moore LV. The bacteria of periodontal diseases. Periodontology. 2000;5:66–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.1994.tb00019.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Rubinstein MR, Wang X, Liu W, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes colorectal carcinogenesis by modulating E-cadherin/beta-catenin signaling via its FadA adhesin. Cell Host Microbe. 2013;14(2):195–206. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2013.07.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Gur C, Ibrahim Y, Isaacson B, et al. Binding of the Fap2 protein of Fusobacterium nucleatum to human inhibitory receptor TIGIT protects tumors from immune cell attack. Immunity. 2015;42(2):344–355. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2015.01.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Yang Y, Weng W, Peng J, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum Increases Proliferation of Colorectal Cancer Cells and Tumor Development in Mice by Activating Toll-Like Receptor 4 Signaling to Nuclear Factor-kappaB, and Up-regulating Expression of MicroRNA-21. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(4):851–866.e24. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.11.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Tahara T, Yamamoto E, Suzuki H, et al. Fusobacterium in colonic flora and molecular features of colorectal carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2014;74(5):1311–1318. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-1865. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Mima K, Sukawa Y, Nishihara R, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum and T Cells in Colorectal Carcinoma. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(5):653–661. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Mima K, Nishihara R, Qian ZR, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum in colorectal carcinoma tissue and patient prognosis. Gut. 2016;65(12):1973–1980. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Bullman S, Pedamallu CS, Sicinska E, et al. Analysis of Fusobacterium persistence and antibiotic response in colorectal cancer. Science. 2017;358(6369):1443–1448. doi: 10.1126/science.aal5240. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Kohoutova D, Smajs D, Moravkova P, et al. Escherichia coli strains of phylogenetic group B2 and D and bacteriocin production are associated with advanced colorectal neoplasia. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14:733. doi: 10.1186/s12879-014-0733-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Cougnoux A, Dalmasso G, Martinez R, et al. Bacterial genotoxin colibactin promotes colon tumour growth by inducing a senescence-associated secretory phenotype. Gut. 2014;63(12):1932–1942. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Prorok-Hamon M, Friswell MK, Alswied A, et al. Colonic mucosa-associated diffusely adherent afaC+ Escherichia coli expressing lpfA and pks are increased in inflammatory bowel disease and colon cancer. Gut. 2014;63(5):761–770. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-304739. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Tyrer PC, Frizelle FA, Keenan JI. Escherichia coli-derived outer membrane vesicles are genotoxic to human enterocyte-like cells. Infect Agent Cancer. 2014;9(1):2. doi: 10.1186/1750-9378-9-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Bonnet M, Buc E, Sauvanet P, et al. Colonization of the human gut by E. coli and colorectal cancer risk. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(4):859–867. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Nakatsu G, Li X, Zhou H, et al. Gut mucosal microbiome across stages of colorectal carcinogenesis. Nat Commun. 2015;6:8727. doi: 10.1038/ncomms9727. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Repass J, Maherali N, Owen K. Registered report: fusobacterium nucleatum infection is prevalent in human colorectal carcinoma. eLife. 2016;5 doi: 10.7554/eLife.10012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Flemer B, Lynch DB, Brown JM, et al. Tumour-associated and non-tumour-associated microbiota in colorectal cancer. Gut. 2017;66(4):633–643. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Peters BA, Dominianni C, Shapiro JA, et al. The gut microbiota in conventional and serrated precursors of colorectal cancer. Microbiome. 2016;4(1):69. doi: 10.1186/s40168-016-0218-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Araujo-Perez F, McCoy AN, Okechukwu C, et al. Differences in microbial signatures between rectal mucosal biopsies and rectal swabs. Gut Microb. 2012;3(6):530–535. doi: 10.4161/gmic.22157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Budding AE, Grasman ME, Eck A, et al. Rectal swabs for analysis of the intestinal microbiota. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e101344. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Thomas RM, Jobin C. The microbiome and cancer: is the ‘oncobiome’ mirage real? Trends Cancer. 2015;1(1):24–35. doi: 10.1016/j.trecan.2015.07.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Schmidt TSB, Raes J, Bork P. The human gut microbiome: from association to modulation. Cell. 2018;172(6):1198–1215. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Tjalsma H, Boleij A, Marchesi JR, et al. A bacterial driver-passenger model for colorectal cancer: beyond the usual suspects. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10(8):575–582. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2819. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Lepage P, Leclerc MC, Joossens M, et al. A metagenomic insight into our gut’s microbiome. Gut. 2013;62(1):146–158. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Turnbaugh PJ, Gordon JI. An invitation to the marriage of metagenomics and metabolomics. Cell. 2008;134(5):708–713. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.08.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Nicholson JK, Holmes E, Kinross J, et al. Host-gut microbiota metabolic interactions. Science. 2012;336(6086):1262–1267. doi: 10.1126/science.1223813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Kinross J, Mirnezami R, Alexander J, et al. A prospective analysis of mucosal microbiome-metabonome interactions in colorectal cancer using a combined MAS 1HNMR and metataxonomic strategy. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):8979. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08150-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Ogino S, Chan AT, Fuchs CS, et al. Molecular pathological epidemiology of colorectal neoplasia: an emerging transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary field. Gut. 2011;60(3):397–411. doi: 10.1136/gut.2010.217182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Ogino S, Nowak JA, Hamada T, et al. Integrative analysis of exogenous, endogenous, tumour and immune factors for precision medicine. Gut. 2018;67(6):1168–1180. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Boleij A, Tjalsma H. The itinerary of Streptococcus gallolyticus infection in patients with colonic malignant disease. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(8):719–724. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70107-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Garza-Gonzalez E, Rios M, Bosques-Padilla FJ, et al. Immune response against Streptococcus gallolyticus in patients with adenomatous polyps in colon. Int J Cancer. 2012;131(10):2294–2299. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Kumar R, Herold JL, Schady D, et al. Streptococcus gallolyticus subsp. gallolyticus promotes colorectal tumor development. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13(7):e1006440. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Wang X, Allen TD, May RJ, et al. Enterococcus faecalis induces aneuploidy and tetraploidy in colonic epithelial cells through a bystander effect. Cancer Res. 2008;68(23):9909–9917. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-1551. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Wang X, Yang Y, Huycke MM. Commensal bacteria drive endogenous transformation and tumour stem cell marker expression through a bystander effect. Gut. 2015;64(3):459–468. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Cuevas-Ramos G, Petit CR, Marcq I, et al. Escherichia coli induces DNA damage in vivo and triggers genomic instability in mammalian cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(25):11537–11542. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1001261107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Maddocks OD, Scanlon KM, Donnenberg MS. An Escherichia coli effector protein promotes host mutation via depletion of DNA mismatch repair proteins. mBio. 2013;4(3):e00152–13. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00152-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Purcell RV, Pearson J, Aitchison A, et al. Colonization with enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis is associated with early-stage colorectal neoplasia. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0171602. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Goodwin AC, Destefano Shields CE, Wu S, et al. Polyamine catabolism contributes to enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis-induced colon tumorigenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(37):15354–15359. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010203108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Wu S, Rhee KJ, Albesiano E, et al. A human colonic commensal promotes colon tumorigenesis via activation of T helper type 17 T cell responses. Nat Med. 2009;15(9):1016–1022. doi: 10.1038/nm.2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Housseau F, Sears CL. Enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis (ETBF)-mediated colitis in Min (Apc+/-) mice: a human commensal-based murine model of colon carcinogenesis. Cell Cycle. 2010;9(1):3–5. doi: 10.4161/cc.9.1.10352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Tsoi H, Chu ESH, Zhang X, et al. Peptostreptococcus anaerobius induces intracellular cholesterol biosynthesis in colon cells to induce proliferation and causes dysplasia in mice. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(6):1419–1433.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Erdman SE, Rao VP, Poutahidis T, et al. Nitric oxide and TNF-alpha trigger colonic inflammation and carcinogenesis in Helicobacter hepaticus-infected, Rag2-deficient mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(4):1027–1032. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812347106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from ecancermedicalscience are provided here courtesy of ecancer Global Foundation

RESOURCES