Skip to main content
F1000Research logoLink to F1000Research
. 2020 Apr 24;9:F1000 Faculty Rev-294. [Version 1] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.20805.1

Ulcerative colitis: Recent advances in the understanding of disease pathogenesis

Ross J Porter 1, Rahul Kalla 1, Gwo-Tzer Ho 1,a
PMCID: PMC7194476  PMID: 32399194

Abstract

Inflammatory bowel diseases are common, complex, immune-mediated conditions with a sharply rising global prevalence. While major advances since 2000 have provided strong mechanistic clues implicating a de-regulation in the normal interaction among host genetics, immunity, microbiome, and the environment, more recent progress has generated entirely new hypotheses and also further refined older disease concepts. In this review, we focus specifically on these novel developments in the pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis.

Keywords: Ulcerative colitis, Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Inflammation, Mucosal Immunology, Pathogenesis

Introduction

The Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBDs), namely Ulcerative Colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) ( Table 1), are chronic immune-mediated conditions with a high prevalence in developed countries (>0.3%) and rapidly increasing incidence in newly industrialised countries (annual percentage change +14.9%) 1, 2. Global prevalence is projected to affect up to 30 million individuals by 2025 3. Since its original description by Samuel Wilks in Morbid appearances in the intestine of Miss Bankes in 1859, the notably consistent features of UC that at once appear to be such strong clues have not yet led to a clear understanding of disease pathogenesis 4. These clinical features include the almost-universal involvement of the rectum (the lowest part of the colon) as the first site where inflammation starts and the distinctively confluent nature of inflammation that ends with an abrupt demarcation and transition into normal colonic mucosa. Smoking is protective, and UC often presents after smoking cessation 5. Furthermore, the development of appendicitis is protective against UC. On the other hand, UC (like CD) is clinically heterogeneous: only 30% and 15% of patients have extensive (affecting more than half of the colon) or aggressive (patients rapidly become unwell with features of systemic upset) colitis, respectively 6. Approximately half of patients may develop a more complicated disease course, some by virtue of not responding to drug treatments 79. Hence, like many complex diseases, diverse aetiological factors shape the initiation of UC and impact subsequent disease course and severity ( Table 2).

Table 1. Summary of clinical features of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.

Crohn’s disease (CD) Ulcerative colitis (UC)
Incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)
Sex Higher incidence in females than in males Equal incidence in males and females
Global prevalence High incidence of CD in developed countries with high prevalence UC emerged before CD in developed countries;
UC is more prevalent in newly industrialised
countries
Clinical presentation
Symptomology Chronic diarrhoea, abdominal pain, fever, malnourishment, fatigue,
and weight loss
Most commonly bloody diarrhoea with
abdominal pain, urgency, and tenesmus;
haematochezia is more common in UC
Serological
markers
Antibodies to microbiota including anti- Saccharomyces cerevisiae
antibodies; also, anti-OmpC, anti-I2, and anti-Cbir1 antibodies and
antibodies against exocrine pancreas
Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies; also,
antibodies to goblet cells
Gross pathology and histopathology
Affected areas Can affect the entire gastrointestinal tract (from mouth to anus);
terminal ileum is often implicated
Affects the colon with potential backwash ileitis
or rectal sparing in longstanding disease
Pattern of
inflammation
Often patchy and discontinuous cobblestone pattern of
inflammation with skip lesions
Continuous inflammation extending from the
rectum proximally, often with a separate caecal
patch
Penetrance Transmural inflammation of the entire bowel wall Inflammation restricted to the mucosal and
submucosal layers (except in fulminant colitis)
Histopathology Thickened colon wall with non-caseating granulomas and deep
fissures
Fibrosis, lymphangiectasia, mural nerve hypertrophy, and Paneth
cell metaplasia can sometimes be observed
Granulomas are present in about half of Crohn’s patients
Distorted crypt architecture with shallow
erosions and ulcers
Goblet cell depletion, pseudopolyps, submucosal
fibrosis, and mucosal atrophy can sometimes be
observed
Complications
IBD complications Fistulas, strictures, perianal abscesses, and colonic and small
bowel obstruction (from strictures, adhesions, or carcinoma)
Fulminant colitis, toxic megacolon perforation,
and haemorrhage
Colorectal cancer is more common in UC

Table 2. Overview of recent advances in ulcerative colitis (UC).

The current platform of UC pathogenesis
Genetics
    •    Most genetic factors (67% of susceptibility loci) are shared between UC and Crohn’s disease (CD)
    •    Sixteen human leukocyte antigen (HLA) allelic associations (mostly class II) are described for UC
    •    Outwith the HLA region, the ADCY7 gene has the strongest association with UC
    •    UC-specific genes implicate epithelial dysfunction
    •    There is low disease hereditability in UC (6.3% in monozygotic twins)
Environment
    •    UC incidence rises before CD and this is associated with Westernisation
    •    Westernisation factors—urban lifestyle, pollution, diet, antibiotics, better hygiene, and fewer infections—are associated with UC
    •    Appendicitis and smoking are protective in UC; smoking cessation can precede UC
    •    Patients with UC have a 30% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease
Microbiota
    •    The UC gut microbiome, virome, and mycobiome is less diverse over time
    •    Faecal microbial transplantation is effective in UC
    •    It is not known if dysbiosis is a consequence, or initiator, of inflammation
    •    There is depletion of protective (Ruminococcaceae and Lachnospiraceae) and enrichment of inflammatory (Enterobacteriaceae
and Fusobacteriaceae) microbes
Epithelial barrier
    •    An impaired epithelial barrier is a pathogenic factor for UC
    •    An innate “at risk” barrier-specific genetic phenotype where exposure to additional injurious stimuli, such as non-steroidal
anti-inflammatories and dietary components such as emulsifiers, may be the second trigger that precipitates colitis
Immune response
    •    Neutrophils are “first responder” cells and undergo inflammatory cell death, which drives inflammation
    •    Innate immune responses (neutrophils/macrophages) may promote a pathogenic adaptive (likely T-cell driven) response
    •    How HLA allelic associations influence antigen presentation is not fully understood
    •    UC immunity is more complex than simply a non-classical Th2 response given newly discovered Th19 and Th17 responses and
effective interleukin (IL)-23 blockade therapy
New progress in the pathogenesis of UC
Mitochondria
    •    Mitochondriopathy is a pathogenic process in UC
    •    Loss of mitochondrial homeostasis leads to defective energy production, increased oxidative stress, and the release of
pro-inflammatory damage-associated molecular patterns
Single-cell data
    •    New colonic epithelial cell subsets have been identified that can sense colonic luminal pH and set the epithelial cGMP tone in
response; goblet cell remodelling also has important implications
    •    Strong compartmentalisation around inflammatory monocytes and novel network hubs around the poorly characterised CD8 +IL17 +
T cells and microfold-like (M) cells are observed in UC
    •    In some patients, inflammation-associated fibroblasts (IAFs) are expanded, enriched with many genes associated with colitis,
fibrosis, and cancer
    •    One of the most enriched genes in IAFs is oncostatin M ( OSM); high mucosal OSM is associated with poor response to anti-tumour
necrosis factor

The current platform of UC pathogenesis

A widely accepted framework suggests a complex contribution of environmental and host factors that increase the susceptibility of developing UC, and disease onset is triggered by events that perturb the mucosal barrier, alter the healthy balance of the gut microbiota, and abnormally stimulate gut immune responses. Here, we discuss the general aetiological factors that increase the risk of developing UC ( Figure 1) and review the molecular underpinnings of the abnormal inflammatory process in this disease ( Figure 2). We briefly cover the genetic, environmental, immune, and microbiome factors that currently frame our understanding of UC pathogenesis.

Figure 1. General factors associated with increased susceptibility of UC.

Figure 1.

CD, Crohn’s disease; UC, ulcerative colitis.

Figure 2. Molecular mechanisms involved in the development of mucosal inflammation in UC.

Figure 2.

DAMPs, damage-associated molecular patterns; ER, endoplasmic reticulum; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; IL, interleukin; Mɸ, macrophage; NSAID, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug; OSM, oncostatin M; ROS, reactive oxygen species; SCFA, short-chain fatty acid; TNF, tumour necrosis factor; UC, ulcerative colitis.

Genetics

Genetic studies (including genome-wide association [GWA], whole genome sequencing [WGS], and fine mapping studies) have been particularly successful in identifying 260 susceptibility loci (both common and rare genetic variants) associated with IBD 1014. There are several key findings. Firstly, most genetic factors are shared between UC and CD. In an initial analysis of 15 GWA datasets, Jostins et al. showed that 110 out of 163 (67%) susceptibility loci were associated with both UC and CD 11. These shared genes encode both innate and adaptive immune pathways, cytokine signalling, and immune sensing (e.g. IL23-R, IL-12, JAK2, CARD9, TNFSF18, and IL-10). Many of these genes (70%) are also shared with other autoimmune diseases such as ankylosing spondylitis and psoriasis. Secondly, the strongest genetic signals within UC-specific loci are associated with the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) region in chromosome 6. Sixteen HLA allelic associations (mostly class II) are described for UC, including HLA DRB1*01*03 for IBD colonic involvement on deeper fine mapping genetic analysis 15. Further analyses show that these are associated with colonic involvement for UC and CD 16. It is of interest to note that HLA allelic associations with extensive and aggressive UC have been noted even prior to GWA studies 17. Recent WGS of nearly 2,000 UC patients identified a new but rare missense variant (present in 0.6% of cases) in the adenylate cyclase 7 gene ( ADCY7) that doubles the risk of UC 12. Outwith the HLA region, the ADCY7 gene has the strongest genetic association observed with UC. ADCY7 is one of a family of 10 enzymes that convert ATP to the ubiquitous second messenger cAMP. In addition to this, many UC-specific genes are involved in the regulation of epithelial barrier function (further discussed below). Thirdly, despite the identification of many susceptibility loci, genetics explain only 19% of disease heritability in UC 18. The concordance rate amongst monozygotic twins for UC is only 6.3% (compared to nearly 60% in CD). Collectively, genetic factors confer a small but definite increase in susceptibility for UC. Many individuals, however, have no genetic predisposition when assessed by a polygenic risk score that accounts for all of the susceptibility loci 19. This suggests a key role for aberrant adaptive immune responses and epithelial barrier dysfunction in UC disease pathogenesis. Non-genetic factors (notably epigenetics 20, 21) may also play an important role.

Environmental factors

The rapid rise of UC incidence in newly industrialised countries suggests that environmental factors are important 1. This parallels the patterns observed in the Western world during the early 20 th century. Specifically, UC appears first in urban areas, its incidence rising rapidly then slowing; subsequently, CD incidence rises and eventually approaches that of UC 22. Westernisation is accompanied by new urban lifestyle, exposure to pollution, change in diet, access to antibiotics, better hygiene, and fewer infections, all considered as general contributory factors 23. Notwithstanding this, more specific environmental factors associated with UC have been known for some time. The strongest example is seen in the protective effect of cigarette smoking and the notable observation of new-onset UC in individuals who stop smoking. The global patterns of smoking and IBD are changing; an increasingly large former smoker population with UC in China is suggestive of a rapid expansion of the at-risk population 24. The anti-inflammatory effect conferred by cigarette smoking in UC is intriguing and may be mediated by carbon monoxide 25. Further examples include the protective effect of appendicitis against future development of UC 26, 27, the bimodal incidence with a second peak associated with older age in men 28, and, more recently, the curious association with Parkinson’s disease (another condition associated with non-smoking and old age) 29, 30. These all provide more specific aetiological insights into the development of UC. Epidemiologic data have shown a potential protective effect of high dietary n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), present in oily fish 31, and a diet high in red meat in the development of UC 3234.

Gut microbiota

The IBD gut microbiome is significantly less diverse and stable over time, as recently extensively characterised in the Integrative Human Microbiome Project ([iHMP], where 132 IBD and healthy individuals were followed up longitudinally for 1 year) 35 and demonstrated in a case-control study involving 1,800 IBD and irritable bowel syndrome patients 36. A depletion of protective bacteria such as short-chain fatty acid (SCFA)-producing Ruminococcaceae and Lachnospiraceae that coincides with an expansion of pro-inflammatory microbes such as Enterobacteriaceae, including Escherichia coli, and Fusobacteriaceae has been noted 37, 38. These changes, however, are less obvious in UC compared to CD 39. It is not known if dysbiosis is a consequence of, or plays a causal role in, gut inflammation in UC. In this regard, the virome and mycobiome are also less diverse in UC 4043. In the longitudinal iHMP, microbiome patterns did not predict the likelihood of a disease flare. To add to the complexity, a further study in UC showed that microbial abundance did not necessarily correlate with transcriptional activity 44. Therapeutically, however, faecal microbial transplantation (FMT) from healthy donors can treat UC. There are four controlled positive FMT clinical studies 4549. The restoration of microbial diversity, including bacterial species responsible for SCFA production in donor stool, has been suggested as an important contributor 46, 50. Hence, one of the main effects of dysbiosis in UC is likely to be a reduction in epithelial health or a state of epithelial dysfunction that further primes innate susceptibility to UC. In support of this, faecal diversion away from the rectum worsens inflammation, giving rise to “diversion colitis” in UC; the opposite is true for CD, where faecal diversion improves inflammation 51.

Epithelial dysfunction

With the histologic observation of subepithelial inflammation, many studies implicate an impaired epithelial barrier as a pathogenic factor for UC. This is through either altered or impaired secretion (e.g. of antimicrobial peptides, damage-associated molecular patterns, or mucus) or physical defects (e.g. from disruption of epithelial tight junctions or defective regeneration or detoxification) ( Text box 1) 52, 53. GWA studies show UC-specific susceptibility genes that regulate epithelial morphogenesis ( hepatocyte nuclear factor 4 α, Hnf4α 54), adherens junction stability via E-cadherin ( CDH-1), basement membrane anchoring and stability (via laminins, LAMB-1, and extracellular matrix, ECM1), tight junction assembly (guanine nucleotide binding protein alpha 12, GNA12), ion transport (solute carrier family-26 , SLC26A3) 55, and epithelial health via endoplasmic reticulum stress (orsomucoid-1-like gene 3, ORMDL3) 56. Of interest, a protein truncating genetic variant in RNF186, a single-exon ring finger E3 ligase with strong colonic epithelial expression, protects against UC; however, the underlying mechanism is not yet clear 14, 57. Hence, there is a potentially innate “at risk” phenotype where exposure to additional injurious stimuli such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatories 58 (that reduce the synthesis of protective prostaglandins) and dietary components such as emulsifiers (that reduce the thickness of the mucus layer) 59 may be the second trigger that precipitates colitis. As discussed earlier, dysbiosis results in loss of SCFA production 35, which is essential for epithelial energy provision, mucus production, and proliferation in the colon. Hence, clinical trials involving butyrate 60, propionic acid 61, prebiotics 6266, and L-carnitine 61, which facilitate SCFA transport, have demonstrated some efficacy in treating UC 67. During active UC, key pro-inflammatory cytokines such as tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), interferon (IFN)-γ, and interleukin (IL)-13 have direct deleterious effects on epithelial barrier integrity 68, 69. Drugs that maintain remission in UC, such as mesalazine, may exert some of their therapeutic effect by maintaining epithelial health 67. Hence, protecting the “at risk” or restoring colonic epithelial health may be a viable strategy to maintain long-term remission in UC.

Text box 1. Mucosal compartments of the gut wall.

Secreted mucus barrier

Mucus plays dual roles as a lubricant and a physical barrier between luminal contents and the intestinal epithelium. In the colon, an inner layer provides a bacteria-free environment adjacent to the epithelium, and the luminal less-viscous layer harbours the gut microflora.

Colonic epithelium

The single layer consists of intestinal epithelial cells (IECs), mostly absorptive colonocytes connected by tight junctions, interspersed with specialised epithelial lineages, including secretory goblet and enteroendocrine cells (EECs).

Lamina propria

The mucosal compartment beneath the epithelium supported by loose connective tissue and populated by resident immune cells such as macrophage and dendritic cells, along with mesenchymal cells.

Mesenchymal (stromal) cells

Mesenchymal cells of the intestinal lamina propria are a heterogeneous population of non-hematopoietic, non-epithelial cell types that contribute to the regulation of innate immunity and epithelial barrier maintenance with major intestinal tissue stromal cell subsets such as fibroblasts, α smooth muscle actin (α-SMA)-expressing myofibroblasts, and perivascular pericytes.

Abnormal immune response: innate

In active UC, there is a complex inflammatory milieu of innate and adaptive immune cells infiltrating the lamina propria. Neutrophils, the short-lived “first responder” cells, are recruited in abundance with characteristic histology of “crypt abscesses” in UC, where neutrophils transmigrate across the colonic epithelium and die within the colonic crypts 70. The UC inflammatory environment promotes neutrophil survival (potentially via HIF-1 and hypoxia) 71, 72. This increased survival escalates its inflammatory action and tissue damage (via many means, including the release of serine and matrix metalloproteases, reactive oxygen species, and pro-inflammatory cytokines) 73. The high number of neutrophils undergo uncontrolled pro-inflammatory cell death (necrosis, necroptosis, and NETosis), which potentiates and amplifies the pro-inflammatory environment 74, 75. This is supported by high levels of s100a8/9 proteins (or calprotectin), usually found in neutrophils, that are released in blood and stool 7678 and a prominent serological response to self perinuclear anti p-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (pANCA) in UC, both likely indirect indicators of uncontrolled neutrophil cell death 79. Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) can act as a sump for immunogenic molecules that sustain the inflammatory response 75. Hence, there is a rational paradigm that, following disease initiation, the preceding wave of innate inflammatory neutrophils and monocytes (with their pro-inflammatory cytokine repertoire, e.g. IL-1 family, IL-6, and TNF-α) creates an inflammatory milieu (nutritional, metabolic, and cytokine) that promotes a pathologic adaptive (likely T-cell) immune response 80. Such a milieu can also shape newly arriving inflammatory monocytes, monocyte–macrophage function, their survival, and their phenotype, and further factors that influence the host’s ability to resolve inflammation, restore homeostasis, and repair the UC mucosa 81, 82.

Abnormal immune response: adaptive

UC’s strong genetic associations with HLA (mostly class II) suggest that abnormal antigen(s) driving the aberrant T-cell response, which then further shape the pathologic cytokine milieu, are likely to be a crucial causative factor. How HLA influences commensal and/or self antigen presentation (and the identities of these) to T cells and thereafter downstream pathogenic T-cell response remains unclear and challenging. Approaches to study, screen, and define T-cell epitopes have improved considerably and progress is likely 83. Traditionally, UC is associated with a Th2 response with high IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13, whereas CD has a more dominant Th1/Th17 response 84. Earlier studies that show less IL-4 in UC, with CD1d-restricted natural killer T-cells producing IL-13, point to a non-classical Th2 response 85. Some recent developments have overtaken this area. These include the identification of IL-23 as a key driver of Th17 responses 86, genetic associations with IL-23 and its related genes 11, 87, and the presence of Th17 88 (and Th9 89) cells in UC. The Th2 angle becomes less clear where anrukinzumab (a drug that blocks IL-13 by binding with IL-4Ra, a shared subunit for IL-13 and IL-4 receptors) 90 and tralokinumab (a drug that blocks binding to both IL-13Ra and IL-13Ra2) are not effective in UC 91. Blocking IL-23, however, is effective in UC, e.g. mirikizumab (anti-p19 subunit of IL-23) 92 and ustekinumab (anti-p40 subunit of IL-23) 93. The example of anti- TNF treatment first used in CD and then shown to be equally effective in UC 94 demonstrates that basing a translational approach on pure Th-cytokine profile may be oversimplified. Furthermore, although CD4 T cells are considered to be more important in IBD pathogenesis, it is CD8 T cell transcriptomic signatures that have been found to influence whether UC and CD adopt a more aggressive disease course (in this study, CD4 T signatures were not useful) 95. New data characterising the adaptive immune populations at a transcriptomic (and at a single cell) level 96 will yield many more new insights. The recent discovery of innate lymphoid cells (ILCs) 97, 98 as a further mediator of IL-23-driven inflammatory response in the colon 99 is a further new dimension in UC.

New progress in the pathogenesis of UC

The mitochondria and UC

Recent progress has been driven by a strong focus on direct studies on the inflamed mucosa specifically in newly diagnosed or drug-naïve individuals 38, 100, 101. Of interest, using a bulk RNAseq approach in 206 newly diagnosed paediatric UC individuals (PROTECT study), Haberman et al. showed a significant reduction in the expression of mitochondrial genes that encode the oxidative phosphorylation chain (responsible for energy production) and nuclear encoded genes such as PPARGC1A (responsible for mitochondrial biogenesis), implicating mitochondriopathy as a pathogenic process in UC 100. Mitochondria are intracellular double-membrane-bound organelles with many essential physiological roles such as in energy production and the regulation of cell death and immune responses 102. In the last 10 years, many seminal studies have highlighted the mitochondria as the major previously unknown “jigsaw piece” in inflammation 103. Mitochondrial dysfunction has long been implicated in UC, as far back as 1980 104, 105 (reviewed by Novak et al. 106), but new data from the last 3 years have re-focused this concept 100, 107, 108. Such dysregulation of genes that control mitochondrial function have been shown in earlier colonic microarray studies in UC 109.

Functional studies show that mitochondria are sited in a uniquely damaging environment (in the colon, more so than other tissue sites) 107, 110. Loss of mitochondrial homeostasis (including mitophagy and the autophagic removal of damaged mitochondria—IBD GWAS susceptibility genes PARK7 and LRRK2) can lead to defective energy production 111, increased mitochondrial oxidative stress 107, and even the release of mitochondrial products (mitochondrial DNA) as pro-inflammatory DAMPs 108, 112. These lines of evidence contribute to key UC themes such as epithelial dysfunction, the pro-inflammatory mucosal milieu, and direct triggers of the inflammatory response. Such convergence of data has culminated in new approaches in targeting the pro-inflammatory mitochondria, for example mitochondrial anti-oxidant therapy in active UC.

Single cell profiling of the inflamed UC mucosa

Single cell RNA sequencing (scRNA) technology was developed in 2009 before becoming more widely available in 2014. It provides a comprehensive analysis and census of the cell populations (“who is all there?”) in a complex inflamed UC mucosal milieu 113. In UC, three recent scRNA studies (Parikh et al. 114, Smillie et al. 96, and Kinchen et al. 115—scRNA analyses on colonic epithelium, whole layer, and mesenchyme, respectively) have provided some compelling insights 96, 114. These studies have identified new and rare cell types, unique cell-type-specific expression, and deep cell–cell interaction and cell lineage relationships. Secondly, mucosal compartments that have previously received less attention—notably, the colonic mesenchyme—are now implicated as key mediators of inflammation 116. Thirdly, they show entirely new disease angles and have unexpectedly reinvigorated some older mechanistic theories. We highlight the key findings below.

Colonic epithelium: novel cell population and cell-specific changes. A main question is whether there are specific subsets of colonic epithelial cells that display intrinsic molecular pathology that can be pathogenic drivers in UC. Both scRNA studies identified a previously unknown epithelial cell population characterised by distinct expression of the calcium-sensitive chloride channel bestrophin-4 ( BEST4), the protease cathepsin E, and the OTOP2 gene. Intriguingly, this colonocyte likely has the ability to sense pH in the luminal environment and to set the epithelial cGMP tone in response. Smillie et al. showed that BEST4 + enterocytes are distinct from epithelial cells and they are also enriched in genes including otopetrins 2 and 3 ( OTOP2/3), proton channels that detect pH and underlie sour taste perception, and carbonic anhydrase VII ( CA7). In another novel finding, Parikh et al. demonstrated a positional remodelling of goblet cells that coincides with downregulation of WFDC2, an anti-protease molecule that is expressed by goblet cells and inhibits bacterial growth. In vivo, WFDC2 preserves the integrity of tight junctions between epithelial cells and prevents invasion by commensal bacteria and mucosal inflammation. WFCD2 has been proposed as a regulator of innate immunity through inhibition of serine and cysteine proteases 117.

Colonic epithelium: intrinsic changes associated with UC inflamed and non-inflamed mucosa. The sharp demarcation between inflamed and non-inflamed UC mucosa in the colon provides the unique opportunity for scRNA approaches to find distinct changes that may explain this transition from normal to affected mucosa. Interestingly, both areas exhibit many similar dysregulated gene expressions. This suggests a role for mucosal epigenetics: the transcriptional signature of UC precedes inflammation, arises as the result of a dominance of regenerative over damage cues or even as a protective mechanism in anticipation of damage, and persists after resolution. All epithelial subtypes in the inflamed UC mucosa showed upregulation of several inflammatory pathways, notably IFN-γ signalling and cytokine production. Epithelial cells downregulated metabolic processes and induced genes that are needed to produce reactive oxygen species and for microbial killing. Absorptive and secretory progenitor cells upregulated differentiation and cell migration pathways, which suggests an active attempt to repair colitis-induced damage.

Colonic immune cell population: dominant functional cellular hubs. In Smillie et al.’s study that explored the overall colonic immune cell population, cell–cell interaction analyses in the inflamed UC mucosa showed strong compartmentalisation around inflammatory monocytes and novel network hubs around the poorly characterised CD8 +IL17 + T cells and microfold-like (M) cells that are usually rarely found in the healthy colon. CD8 + IL17 + T cells induce IL17A/F, IL23R, and cytotoxic, co-stimulatory, and co-inhibitory programs in UC. M cells are typically associated with lymphoid tissue in the human small intestine, where they are important for recognition of the gut microbiota but are rarely found in the healthy colon 118. A further striking cell–cell interaction hub is centred on a mesenchymal subset of inflammation-associated fibroblasts (IAFs) 96. In some UC patients, IAFs are expanded nearly 190-fold and enriched with many genes associated with colitis, fibrosis, and cancer (including IL13RA2).

Colonic mesenchyme: a newly identified inflammatory component contributing to an anti-tumour necrosis factor response. In the mesenchyme-focused scRNA study, Kinchen et al. identified a distinct activated mesenchymal cell population that expressed TNF superfamily member 14 ( TNFSF14), fibroblastic reticular cell-associated genes, IL-33, CCL19, and lysyl oxidases 115. One of the most enriched genes in IAFs is oncostatin M ( OSM), a putative risk gene, and its receptor OSMR 10. In an earlier study 38, 119, West and colleagues identified significant overexpression of OSM in inflamed IBD mucosa 116. OSM is part of the IL-6 cytokine family that can induce JAK-STAT, phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K), and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) downstream signalling pathways. Further characterisation showed that OSMR is highly expressed in the mesenchyme (as later also shown to be the case). Using UC clinical trial datasets on anti-TNF treatment (infliximab and golimumab), high mucosal OSM expression is associated with poor response to anti-TNF 120, 121.

Future insights from scRNA studies. These recent studies provide a vast “library reference” level amount of data that the IBD research community is only beginning to assimilate and understand. Tantalising new discoveries such as epithelial pH sensing, the roles of new enterocytes marked by BEST4 +, and colonic anti-bacterial responses mediated by WFDC2 and CD8 + IL17 + T cells will require more detailed studies. These are early days of moving from census to understanding function and biology. Other leads such as OSMR blockade and CCL9 inhibition are nearer to translation as potential therapeutic targets. The International Human Gut Atlas Project ( https://helmsleytrust.org/rfa/gut-cell-atlas) will generate an even larger compendium of scRNA data in the next 5 years. Rationalising these enormous data (with other -omics datasets, e.g. genetics and microbiome), or, in lay-terms, how we combine the knowledge of “what and where are the cells?” with “what genes?” and “what bacteria?”, will be both challenging and exciting 122.

Concluding remarks

The rise of deep data encompassing all aspects of molecular and clinical phenotypes in increasingly larger human cohorts, allied with the rapid development of powerful computational analytical approaches, provides a platform to prioritise the directions of mechanistic studies. Original clinical questions 123 such as “why is there a near-universal involvement of the rectum?”, “why is mucosal inflammation different to CD?”, and “how does smoking protect?” and scientific ones such as “is there a specific antigenic trigger?”, “what is the relative importance of adaptive vs. innate immunity?”, and “what are the main mucosal factors that maintain the state of non-resolving inflammation in UC?” will emerge again and hopefully lead to better informed deductive (top-down logic) alongside the inductive (bottom-up logic) processes derived from these big datasets to fully understand the pathogenesis of UC.

Editorial Note on the Review Process

F1000 Faculty Reviews are commissioned from members of the prestigious F1000 Faculty and are edited as a service to readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, the referees provide input before publication and only the final, revised version is published. The referees who approved the final version are listed with their names and affiliations but without their reports on earlier versions (any comments will already have been addressed in the published version).

The referees who approved this article are:

  • Barney Hawthorne, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK

  • Jonathan Rhodes, Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

Funding Statement

GTH is supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Jon Moulton Foundation, Crohn’s Colitis UK and Guts UK Charity.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

References

  • 1. Ng SC, Shi HY, Hamidi N, et al. : Worldwide incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in the 21st century: a systematic review of population-based studies. Lancet. 2018;390(10114):2769–78. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32448-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 2. Jones GR, Lyons M, Plevris N, et al. : IBD prevalence in Lothian, Scotland, derived by capture-recapture methodology. Gut. 2019;68(11):1953–60. 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318936 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Kaplan GG: The global burden of IBD: from 2015 to 2025. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;12(12):720–7. 10.1038/nrgastro.2015.150 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Mulder DJ, Noble AJ, Justinich CJ, et al. : A tale of two diseases: the history of inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2014;8(5):341–8. 10.1016/j.crohns.2013.09.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Mahid SS, Minor KS, Soto RE, et al. : Smoking and inflammatory bowel disease: a meta-analysis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81(11):1462–71. 10.4065/81.11.1462 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Solberg IC, Lygren I, Jahnsen J, et al. : Clinical course during the first 10 years of ulcerative colitis: results from a population-based inception cohort (IBSEN Study). Scand J Gastroenterol. 2009;44(4):431–40. 10.1080/00365520802600961 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 7. Ho GT, Chiam P, Drummond H, et al. : The efficacy of corticosteroid therapy in inflammatory bowel disease: analysis of a 5-year UK inception cohort. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;24(2):319–30. 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02974.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Farrell RJ: Biologics beyond Anti-TNF Agents for Ulcerative Colitis - Efficacy, Safety, and Cost? N Engl J Med. 2019;381(13):1279–81. 10.1056/NEJMe1910742 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Singh S, George J, Boland BS, et al. : Primary Non-Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonists is Associated with Inferior Response to Second-line Biologics in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Crohns Colitis. 2018;12(6):635–43. 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjy004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 10. Liu JZ, van Sommeren S, Huang H, et al. : Association analyses identify 38 susceptibility loci for inflammatory bowel disease and highlight shared genetic risk across populations. Nat Genet. 2015;47(9):979–86. 10.1038/ng.3359 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 11. Jostins L, Ripke S, Weersma RK, et al. : Host-microbe interactions have shaped the genetic architecture of inflammatory bowel disease. Nature. 2012;491(7422):119–24. 10.1038/nature11582 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 12. Luo Y, de Lange KM, Jostins L, et al. : Exploring the genetic architecture of inflammatory bowel disease by whole-genome sequencing identifies association at ADCY7. Nat Genet. 2017;49(2):186–92. 10.1038/ng.3761 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 13. Huang H, Fang M, Jostins L, et al. : Fine-mapping inflammatory bowel disease loci to single-variant resolution. Nature. 2017;547(7662):173–8. 10.1038/nature22969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 14. Beaudoin M, Goyette P, Boucher G, et al. : Deep resequencing of GWAS loci identifies rare variants in CARD9, IL23R and RNF186 that are associated with ulcerative colitis. PLoS Genet. 2013;9(9):e1003723. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003723 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 15. Goyette P, Boucher G, Mallon D, et al. : High-density mapping of the MHC identifies a shared role for HLA-DRB1*01:03 in inflammatory bowel diseases and heterozygous advantage in ulcerative colitis. Nat Genet. 2015;47(2):172–9. 10.1038/ng.3176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 16. Cleynen I, Boucher G, Jostins L, et al. : Inherited determinants of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis phenotypes: a genetic association study. Lancet. 2016;387(10014):156–67. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00465-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 17. Satsangl J, Farrant JM, Jewell DP, et al. : Contribution of genes of the major histocompatibility complex to susceptibility and disease phenotype in inflammatory bowel disease. Lancet. 1996;347(9010):1212–7. 10.1016/s0140-6736(96)90734-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Chen GB, Lee SH, Brion MJ, et al. : Estimation and partitioning of (co)heritability of inflammatory bowel disease from GWAS and immunochip data. Hum Mol Genet. 2014;23(17):4710–20. 10.1093/hmg/ddu174 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Lee HS, Cleynen I: Molecular Profiling of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Is It Ready for Use in Clinical Decision-Making? Cells. 2019;8(6): pii: E535. 10.3390/cells8060535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 20. Ventham NT, Kennedy NA, Nimmo ER, et al. : Beyond gene discovery in inflammatory bowel disease: the emerging role of epigenetics. Gastroenterology. 2013;145(2):293–308. 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.05.050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Kalla R, Ventham NT, Kennedy NA: MicroRNAs: new players in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut. 2015;64(6):1008. 10.1136/gut.2014.307891corr1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Kirsner JB: Historical aspects of inflammatory bowel disease. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1988;10(3):286–97. 10.1097/00004836-198806000-00012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Kaplan GG, Ng SC: Understanding and Preventing the Global Increase of Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(2):313–321.e2. 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.10.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Thomas T, Chandan JS, Li VS, et al. : Global smoking trends in inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review of inception cohorts. PLoS One. 2019;14(9):e0221961. 10.1371/journal.pone.0221961 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 25. Sheikh SZ, Hegazi RA, Kobayashi T, et al. : An anti-inflammatory role for carbon monoxide and heme oxygenase-1 in chronic Th2-mediated murine colitis. J Immunol. 2011;186(9):5506–13. 10.4049/jimmunol.1002433 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Bastida G, Beltrán B: Ulcerative colitis in smokers, non-smokers and ex-smokers. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17(22):2740–7. 10.3748/wjg.v17.i22.2740 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Nyboe Andersen N, Gørtz S, Frisch M, et al. : Reduced risk of UC in families affected by appendicitis: a Danish national cohort study. Gut. 2017;66(8):1398–402. 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-311131 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 28. Langholz E, Munkholm P, Nielsen OH, et al. : Incidence and prevalence of ulcerative colitis in Copenhagen county from 1962 to 1987. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1991;26(12):1247–56. 10.3109/00365529108998621 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Villumsen M, Aznar S, Pakkenberg B, et al. : Inflammatory bowel disease increases the risk of Parkinson's disease: a Danish nationwide cohort study 1977-2014. Gut. 2018;68(1):18–24. 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315666 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 30. Zhu F, Li C, Gong J, et al. : The risk of Parkinson's disease in inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis. 2019;51(1):38–42. 10.1016/j.dld.2018.09.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 31. John S, Luben R, Shrestha SS, et al. : Dietary n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and the aetiology of ulcerative colitis: a UK prospective cohort study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;22(5):602–6. 10.1097/MEG.0b013e3283352d05 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Amarapurkar AD, Amarapurkar DN, Rathi P, et al. : Risk factors for inflammatory bowel disease: A prospective multi-center study. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2018;37(3):189–95. 10.1007/s12664-018-0850-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 33. Jowett SL, Seal CJ, Pearce MS, et al. : Influence of dietary factors on the clinical course of ulcerative colitis: a prospective cohort study. Gut. 2004;53(10):1479–84. 10.1136/gut.2003.024828 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Jantchou P, Morois S, Clavel-Chapelon F, et al. : Animal protein intake and risk of inflammatory bowel disease: The E3N prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(10):2195–201. 10.1038/ajg.2010.192 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 35. Lloyd-Price J, Arze C, Ananthakrishnan AN, et al. : Multi-omics of the gut microbial ecosystem in inflammatory bowel diseases. Nature. 2019;569(7758):655–62. 10.1038/s41586-019-1237-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 36. Vich Vila A, Imhann F, Collij V, et al. : Gut microbiota composition and functional changes in inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome. Sci Transl Med. 2018;10(472): pii: eaap8914. 10.1126/scitranslmed.aap8914 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 37. Duvallet C, Gibbons SM, Gurry T, et al. : Meta-analysis of gut microbiome studies identifies disease-specific and shared responses. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):1784. 10.1038/s41467-017-01973-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 38. Gevers D, Kugathasan S, Denson LA, et al. : The treatment-naive microbiome in new-onset Crohn's disease. Cell Host Microbe. 2014;15(3):382–92. 10.1016/j.chom.2014.02.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 39. Qin J, Li R, Raes J, et al. : A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature. 2010;464(7285):59–65. 10.1038/nature08821 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 40. Norman JM, Handley SA, Baldridge MT, et al. : Disease-specific alterations in the enteric virome in inflammatory bowel disease. Cell. 2015;160(3):447–60. 10.1016/j.cell.2015.01.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 41. Zuo T, Lu XJ, Zhang Y, et al. : Gut mucosal virome alterations in ulcerative colitis. Gut. 2019;68(7):1169–79. 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-318131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 42. Qiu X, Ma J, Jiao C, et al. : Alterations in the mucosa-associated fungal microbiota in patients with ulcerative colitis. Oncotarget. 2017;8(64):107577–107588. 10.18632/oncotarget.22534 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Ott SJ, Kühbacher T, Musfeldt M, et al. : Fungi and inflammatory bowel diseases: Alterations of composition and diversity. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2008;43(7):831–41. 10.1080/00365520801935434 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 44. Moen AE, Lindstrøm JC, Tannæs TM, et al. : The prevalence and transcriptional activity of the mucosal microbiota of ulcerative colitis patients. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):17278. 10.1038/s41598-018-35243-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 45. Sha S, Liang J, Chen M, et al. : Systematic review: faecal microbiota transplantation therapy for digestive and nondigestive disorders in adults and children. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014;39(10):1003–32. 10.1111/apt.12699 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Moayyedi P, Surette MG, Kim PT, et al. : Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Induces Remission in Patients With Active Ulcerative Colitis in a Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(1):102–109.e6. 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Rossen NG, Fuentes S, van der Spek MJ, et al. : Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial of Fecal Transplantation for Patients With Ulcerative Colitis. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(1):110–118.e4. 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.03.045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Costello SP, Hughes PA, Waters O, et al. : Effect of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation on 8-Week Remission in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019;321(2):156–164. 10.1001/jama.2018.20046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 49. Paramsothy S, Kamm MA, Kaakoush NO, et al. : Multidonor intensive faecal microbiota transplantation for active ulcerative colitis: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10075):1218–28. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30182-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 50. Paramsothy S, Nielsen S, Kamm MA, et al. : Specific Bacteria and Metabolites Associated With Response to Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(5):1440–1454.e2. 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 51. Glotzer DJ, Glick ME, Goldman H: Proctitis and colitis following diversion of the fecal stream. Gastroenterology. 1981;80(3):438–41. 10.1016/0016-5085(81)90003-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. McCauley HA, Guasch G: Three cheers for the goblet cell: maintaining homeostasis in mucosal epithelia. Trends Mol Med. 2015;21(8):492–503. 10.1016/j.molmed.2015.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Turner JR: Intestinal mucosal barrier function in health and disease. Nat Rev Immunol. 2009;9(11):799–809. 10.1038/nri2653 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Cattin AL, Le Beyec J, Barreau F, et al. : Hepatocyte nuclear factor 4alpha, a key factor for homeostasis, cell architecture, and barrier function of the adult intestinal epithelium. Mol Cell Biol. 2009;29(23):6294–308. 10.1128/MCB.00939-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Asano K, Matsushita T, Umeno J, et al. : A genome-wide association study identifies three new susceptibility loci for ulcerative colitis in the Japanese population. Nat Genet. 2009;41(12):1325–9. 10.1038/ng.482 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. McGovern DPB, Gardet A, Törkvist L, et al. : Genome-wide association identifies multiple ulcerative colitis susceptibility loci. Nat Genet. 2010;42(4):332–7. 10.1038/ng.549 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 57. Rivas MA, Graham D, Sulem P, et al. : A protein-truncating R179X variant in RNF186 confers protection against ulcerative colitis. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12342. 10.1038/ncomms12342 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Klein A, Eliakim R: Non Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2010;3(4):1084–92. 10.3390/ph3041084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Chassaing B, Koren O, Goodrich JK, et al. : Dietary emulsifiers impact the mouse gut microbiota promoting colitis and metabolic syndrome. Nature. 2015;519(7541):92–6. 10.1038/nature14232 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 60. Patz J, Jacobsohn WZ, Gottschalk-Sabag S, et al. : Treatment of refractory distal ulcerative colitis with short chain fatty acid enemas. Am J Gastroenterol. 1996;91(4):731–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Mikhailova TL, Sishkova E, Poniewierka E, et al. : Randomised clinical trial: the efficacy and safety of propionyl-L-carnitine therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis receiving stable oral treatment. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011;34(9):1088–97. 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04844.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Benjamin JL, Hedin CR, Koutsoumpas A, et al. : Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of fructo-oligosaccharides in active Crohn's disease. Gut. 2011;60(7):923–9. 10.1136/gut.2010.232025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Kanauchi O, Suga T, Tochihara M, et al. : Treatment of ulcerative colitis by feeding with germinated barley foodstuff: first report of a multicenter open control trial. J Gastroenterol. 2002;37 Suppl 14:67–72. 10.1007/bf03326417 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Scheppach W: Treatment of distal ulcerative colitis with short-chain fatty acid enemas. A placebo-controlled trial. German-Austrian SCFA Study Group. Dig Dis Sci. 1996;41(11):2254–9. 10.1007/bf02071409 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Breuer RI, Buto SK, Christ ML, et al. : Rectal irrigation with short-chain fatty acids for distal ulcerative colitis. Preliminary report. Dig Dis Sci. 1991;36(2):185–7. 10.1007/bf01300754 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Vernia P, Marcheggiano A, Caprilli R, et al. : Short-chain fatty acid topical treatment in distal ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1995;9(3):309–13. 10.1111/j.1365-2036.1995.tb00386.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Hallert C, Björck I, Nyman M, et al. : Increasing Fecal Butyrate in Ulcerative Colitis Patients by Diet: Controlled Pilot Study. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2003;9(2):116–21. 10.1097/00054725-200303000-00005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Heller F, Fromm A, Gitter AH, et al. : Epithelial apoptosis is a prominent feature of the epithelial barrier disturbance in intestinal inflammation: Effect of pro-inflammatory interleukin-13 on epithelial cell function. Mucosal Immunol. 2008;1 Suppl 1:S58–61. 10.1038/mi.2008.46 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Watson CJ, Hoare CJ, Garrod DR, et al. : Interferon- selectively increases epithelial permeability to large molecules by activating different populations of paracellular pores. J Cell Sci. 2005;118(Pt 22):5221–30. 10.1242/jcs.02630 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Park S, Abdi T, Gentry M, et al. : Histological Disease Activity as a Predictor of Clinical Relapse Among Patients With Ulcerative Colitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(12):1692–701. 10.1038/ajg.2016.418 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Taylor CT, Colgan SP: Regulation of immunity and inflammation by hypoxia in immunological niches. Nat Rev Immunol. 2017;17(12):774–85. 10.1038/nri.2017.103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Lin N, Simon MC: Hypoxia-inducible factors: Key regulators of myeloid cells during inflammation. J Clin Invest. 2016;126(10):3661–71. 10.1172/JCI84426 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Phillipson M, Kubes P: The neutrophil in vascular inflammation. Nat Med. 2011;17(11):1381–90. 10.1038/nm.2514 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Angelidou I, Chrysanthopoulou A, Mitsios A, et al. : REDD1/Autophagy Pathway Is Associated with Neutrophil-Driven IL-1β Inflammatory Response in Active Ulcerative Colitis. J Immunol. 2018;200(12):3950–61. 10.4049/jimmunol.1701643 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Dinallo V, Marafini I, Di Fusco D, et al. : Neutrophil Extracellular Traps Sustain Inflammatory Signals in Ulcerative Colitis. J Crohns Colitis. 2019;13(6):772–84. 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjy215 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 76. D'Haens G, Ferrante M, Vermeire S, et al. : Fecal calprotectin is a surrogate marker for endoscopic lesions in inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2012;18(12):2218–24. 10.1002/ibd.22917 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Kalla R, Kennedy NA, Ventham NT, et al. : Serum Calprotectin: A Novel Diagnostic and Prognostic Marker in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(12):1796–805. 10.1038/ajg.2016.342 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78. Ho GT, Lee HM, Brydon G, et al. : Fecal Calprotectin Predicts the Clinical Course of Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(3):673–8. 10.1038/ajg.2008.119 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79. Satsangi J, Landers CJ, Welsh KI, et al. : The presence of anti-neutrophil antibodies reflects clinical and genetic heterogeneity within inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 1998;4(1):18–26. 10.1097/00054725-199802000-00004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80. Friedrich M, Pohin M, Powrie F: Cytokine Networks in the Pathophysiology of Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Immunity. 2019;50(4):992–1006. 10.1016/j.immuni.2019.03.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 81. Mowat AM, Scott CL, Bain CC: Barrier-tissue macrophages: Functional adaptation to environmental challenges. Nat Med. 2017;23(11):1258–70. 10.1038/nm.4430 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 82. Na YR, Stakenborg M, Seok SH, et al. : Macrophages in intestinal inflammation and resolution: A potential therapeutic target in IBD. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;16(9):531–43. 10.1038/s41575-019-0172-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 83. Graham DB, Luo C, O’Connell DJ, et al. : Antigen discovery and specification of immunodominance hierarchies for MHCII-restricted epitopes. Nat Med. 2018;24(11):1762–72. 10.1038/s41591-018-0203-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 84. Bouma G, Strober W: The immunological and genetic basis of inflammatory bowel disease. Nat Rev Immunol. 2003;3(7):521–33. 10.1038/nri1132 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85. Fuss IJ, Heller F, Boirivant M, et al. : Nonclassical CD1d-restricted NK T cells that produce IL-13 characterize an atypical Th2 response in ulcerative colitis. J Clin Invest. 2004;113(10):1490–7. 10.1172/JCI19836 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86. Teng MWL, Bowman EP, McElwee JJ, et al. : IL-12 and IL-23 cytokines: From discovery to targeted therapies for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Nat Med. 2015;21(7):719–29. 10.1038/nm.3895 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87. Duerr RH, Taylor KD, Brant SR, et al. : A Genome-Wide Association Study Identifies IL23R as an Inflammatory Bowel Disease Gene. Science. 2006;314(5804):1461–3. 10.1126/science.1135245 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 88. Kobayashi T, Okamoto S, Hisamatsu T, et al. : IL23 differentially regulates the Th1/Th17 balance in ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Gut. 2008;57(12):1682–9. 10.1136/gut.2007.135053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89. Nalleweg N, Chiriac MT, Podstawa E, et al. : IL-9 and its receptor are predominantly involved in the pathogenesis of UC. Gut. 2015;64(5):743–55. 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305947 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90. Reinisch W, Panés J, Khurana S, et al. : Anrukinzumab, an anti-interleukin 13 monoclonal antibody, in active UC: Efficacy and safety from a phase IIa randomised multicentre study. Gut. 2015;64(6):894–900. 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308337 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91. Danese S, Rudziński J, Brandt W, et al. : Tralokinumab for moderate-to-severe UC: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIa study. Gut. 2015;64(2):243–9. 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92. Sandborn WJ, Ferrante M, Bhandari BR, et al. : Efficacy and Safety of Mirikizumab in a Randomized Phase 2 Study of Patients With Ulcerative Colitis. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(3):537–549.e10. 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.08.043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 93. Sands BE, Sandborn WJ, Panaccione R, et al. : Ustekinumab as Induction and Maintenance Therapy for Ulcerative Colitis. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(13):1201–14. 10.1056/NEJMoa1900750 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 94. Rutgeerts P, Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, et al. : Infliximab for induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(23):2462–76. 10.1056/NEJMoa050516 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 95. Lee JC, Lyons PA, McKinney EF, et al. : Gene expression profiling of CD8+ T cells predicts prognosis in patients with Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis. J. Clin. Invest.. 2011;121(10):4170–9. 10.1172/JCI59255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 96. Smillie CS, Biton M, Ordovas-Montanes J, et al. : Intra- and Inter-cellular Rewiring of the Human Colon during Ulcerative Colitis. Cell. 2019;178(3):714–730.e22. 10.1016/j.cell.2019.06.029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 97. Hepworth MR, Monticelli LA, Fung TC, et al. : Innate lymphoid cells regulate CD4+ T-cell responses to intestinal commensal bacteria. Nature. 2013;498(7452):113–7. 10.1038/nature12240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 98. Pantazi E, Powell N: Group 3 ILCs: Peacekeepers or Troublemakers? What's Your Gut Telling You?! Front Immunol. 2019;10:676. 10.3389/fimmu.2019.00676 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 99. Geremia A, Arancibia-Cárcamo CV, Fleming MPP, et al. : IL-23-responsive innate lymphoid cells are increased in inflammatory bowel disease. J Exp Med. 2011;208(6):1127–33. 10.1084/jem.20101712 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 100. Haberman Y, Karns R, Dexheimer PJ, et al. : Ulcerative colitis mucosal transcriptomes reveal mitochondriopathy and personalized mechanisms underlying disease severity and treatment response. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):38. 10.1038/s41467-018-07841-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 101. Denson LA, Curran M, McGovern DPB, et al. : Challenges in IBD Research: Precision Medicine. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2019;25(Suppl 2):S31–S39. 10.1093/ibd/izz078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102. Friedman JR, Nunnari J: Mitochondrial form and function. Nature. 2014;505(7483):335–43. 10.1038/nature12985 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103. West AP, Shadel GS: Mitochondrial DNA in innate immune responses and inflammatory pathology. Nat Rev Immunol. 2017;17(6):363–75. 10.1038/nri.2017.21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 104. Roediger WE: The colonic epithelium in ulcerative colitis: an energy-deficiency disease? Lancet. 1980;316(8197):712–5. 10.1016/s0140-6736(80)91934-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105. Delpre G, Avidor I, Steinherz R, et al. : Ultrastructural abnormalities in endoscopically and histologically normal and involved colon in ulcerative colitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 1989;84(9):1038–46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106. Novak EA, Mollen KP: Mitochondrial dysfunction in inflammatory bowel disease. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2015;3:62. 10.3389/fcell.2015.00062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107. Ho GT, Aird RE, Liu B, et al. : MDR1 deficiency impairs mitochondrial homeostasis and promotes intestinal inflammation. Mucosal Immunol. 2018;11(1):120–30. 10.1038/mi.2017.31 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108. Boyapati RK, Dorward DA, Tamborska A, et al. : Mitochondrial DNA Is a Pro-Inflammatory Damage-Associated Molecular Pattern Released During Active IBD. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2018;24(10):2113–22. 10.1093/ibd/izy095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109. Noble CL, Abbas AR, Cornelius J, et al. : Regional variation in gene expression in the healthy colon is dysregulated in ulcerative colitis. Gut. 2008;57(10):1398–405. 10.1136/gut.2008.148395 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110. Pagliarini DJ, Calvo SE, Chang B, et al. : A mitochondrial protein compendium elucidates complex I disease biology. Cell. 2008;134(1):112–23. 10.1016/j.cell.2008.06.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 111. Bär F, Bochmann W, Widok A, et al. : Mitochondrial gene polymorphisms that protect mice from colitis. Gastroenterology. 2013;145(5):1055–1063.e3. 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.07.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112. Boyapati RK, Tamborska A, Dorward DA, et al. : Advances in the understanding of mitochondrial DNA as a pathogenic factor in inflammatory diseases. F1000Res. 2017;6:169. 10.12688/f1000research.10397.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113. Papalexi E, Satija R: Single-cell RNA sequencing to explore immune cell heterogeneity. Nat Rev Immunol. 2018;18(1):35–45. 10.1038/nri.2017.76 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114. Parikh K, Antanaviciute A, Fawkner-Corbett D, et al. : Colonic epithelial cell diversity in health and inflammatory bowel disease. Nature. 2019;567(7746):49–55. 10.1038/s41586-019-0992-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115. Kinchen J, Chen HH, Parikh K, et al. : Structural Remodeling of the Human Colonic Mesenchyme in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Cell. 2018;175(2):372–386.e17. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.08.067 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116. West NR, Hegazy AN, Owens BM, et al. : Oncostatin M drives intestinal inflammation and predicts response to tumor necrosis factor-neutralizing therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Nat Med. 2017;23(5):579–89. 10.1038/nm.4307 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117. Chhikara N, Saraswat M, Tomar AK, et al. : Human epididymis protein-4 (HE-4): a novel cross-class protease inhibitor. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e47672. 10.1371/journal.pone.0047672 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
  • 118. Mabbott NA, Donaldson DS, Ohno H, et al. : Microfold (M) cells: important immunosurveillance posts in the intestinal epithelium. Mucosal Immunol. 2013;6(4):666–77. 10.1038/mi.2013.30 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119. Vanhove W, Peeters PM, Staelens D, et al. : Strong Upregulation of AIM2 and IFI16 Inflammasomes in the Mucosa of Patients with Active Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015;21(11):2673–82. 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000535 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120. Sandborn WJ, Rutgeerts P, Feagan BG, et al. : Colectomy rate comparison after treatment of ulcerative colitis with placebo or infliximab. Gastroenterology. 2009;137(4):1250–60. 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.06.061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121. Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Marano C, et al. : Subcutaneous golimumab induces clinical response and remission in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2014;146(1):85–95; quiz e14-5. 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.05.048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122. Plichta DR, Graham DB, Subramanian S, et al. : Therapeutic Opportunities in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Mechanistic Dissection of Host-Microbiome Relationships. Cell. 2019;178(5):1041–56. 10.1016/j.cell.2019.07.045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123. Colombel JF, Watson AJ, Neurath MF: The 10 remaining mysteries of inflammatory bowel disease. Gut. 2008;57(4):429–33. 10.1136/gut.2007.122192 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from F1000Research are provided here courtesy of F1000 Research Ltd

RESOURCES