
Keywords: fecal transplantation, gastrointestinal disease, microbial therapeutics, microbiome, natural products
Abstract
Systems biology studies have established that changes in gastrointestinal microbiome composition and function can adversely impact host physiology. Notable diseases synonymously associated with dysbiosis include inflammatory bowel diseases, cancer, metabolic disorders, and opportunistic and recurrent pathogen infections. However, there is a scarcity of mechanistic data that advances our understanding of taxonomic correlations with pathophysiological host-microbiome interactions. Generally, to survive a hostile gut environment, microbes are highly metabolically active and produce trans-kingdom signaling molecules to interact with competing microorganisms and the host. These specialized metabolites likely play important homeostatic roles, and identifying disease-specific taxa and their effector pathways can provide better strategies for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention, as well as the discovery of innovative therapeutics. The signaling role of microbial biotransformation products such as bile acids, short-chain fatty acids, polysaccharides, and dietary tryptophan is increasingly recognized, but little is known about the identity and function of metabolites that are synthesized by microbial biosynthetic gene clusters, including ribosomally synthesized and posttranslationally modified peptides (RiPPs), nonribosomal peptides (NRPs), polyketides (PKs), PK-NRP hybrids, and terpenes. Here we consider how bioactive natural products directly encoded by the human microbiome can contribute to the pathophysiology of gastrointestinal disease, cancer, autoimmune, antimicrobial-resistant bacterial and viral infections (including COVID-19). We also present strategies used to discover these compounds and the biological activities they exhibit, with consideration of therapeutic interventions that could emerge from understanding molecular causation in gut microbiome research.
INTRODUCTION
New sequencing technologies based on culture-free methods and metagenomics have revealed that humans are colonized by trillions of microorganisms collectively termed “microbiota.” In the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, the combined genetic information contained within the microbiota (known as the microbiome) greatly exceeds that of their host (1, 2). Host interactions with symbiotic microbiota have attracted great attention over the past two decades, resulting in tremendous growth of publications studying the human gut microbiome. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Human Microbiome Project (HMP) and European Metagenomics of the Human Intestinal Tract (MetaHIT) consortia played a major role in rekindling interest in the gut microbiome by developing culture-independent 16S ribosomal RNA (16S rRNA) and whole shotgun metagenomic (WGS) sequencing platforms to characterize bacterial community structure and composition in different parts of the human body (1, 3). In addition to bacteria, microbiota is also composed of archaea, fungi, protists, and viruses that inhabit different body sites, including the oral cavity, gut, lung, skin, and genitalia (4). In the GI tract, the majority of bacteria belong to phyla Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, which represent over 90% of the phylogeny identified in this organ (3, 5). However, a substantial difference in microbiome composition is evident among healthy individuals (3, 5), and this diversity is especially significant among infants (6).
Since the host and its associated microbiome have coevolved, transkingdom interactions between eukaryotes and prokaryotes (human-microbiome interactions) exert great impact on the fitness and well-being of the host (7). It is now widely recognized that the microbiome can contribute to human health and disease, which has led some physician-scientists to see this symbiotic entity as a new “human organ” (8). Others have described humans as “holobionts” composed of microbial and human cells (9). In fact, it is now universally accepted that the gut microbiome acts as an accessory organ that plays a critical role in the digestion of food and production of essential vitamins, host immunity, and defense against pathogens (10–13). With state-of-the-art metagenomic, bioinformatic, and statistical tools being readily available, these methods are widely applied to study the diversity and composition of the gut microbiome in healthy versus disease states. These holistic studies have paved the way to understanding what constitutes a healthy microbiome profile among individuals as opposed to the disturbed or altered microbiome “dysbiosis,” which has been correlated to several diseases including diabetes (14), inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) (15), cancer (16), asthma (17), obesity (14), pathogen colonization with organisms such as Clostridioides difficile (18), and neurodegenerative diseases including Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease (19). Clear correlations established changes in microbiome structure and composition with several diseases, including the abundance, presence, or absence of specific microbial members linked to susceptibility to autoimmune disease or pathogenic invasion including COVID-19 or H1N1 influenza (20–22).
Despite the significant progress made in microbiome research, mechanisms that define host-microbiome interactions impacting human health are still poorly understood. Furthermore, there is still a lack of studies that move from simple associations or correlations between changes in microbiome composition with disease states to more reductionist questions that explore microbe-produced molecules, their functions, and mechanisms in host-microbiome interactions. However, bridging this knowledge gap is of utmost importance to exploit the power of the microbiome in disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. Since microbes interact with their host and the environment by producing specialized metabolites (also known as natural products), it is likely that these molecules are key players in modulating microbiome composition and/or phenotypic host responses. Recent bioinformatic investigations of bacterial genomes from human subjects disclosed that the microbiome genomes encode several small-molecule biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) with little information about their structures or biological functions (23, 24). In this review, we consider bioactive secondary metabolites produced by members of the microbiome that could cause disease or promote health in cancer, autoimmune, and drug resistance-associated diseases. We describe mechanisms and potential therapeutic interventions that could emanate from a better understanding of causation in microbiome-based research.
BIOSYNTHETIC GENE CLASSES AND SECONDARY METABOLITES FROM THE HUMAN MICROBIOME
The human body is colonized by microbial cells living inside and outside of our body sites with a total mass of ∼0.2 kg (25). Sender et al. (25) estimated the weight of the microbiota to be ∼0.2 kg based on microbial and human cells count and calculations revising past estimates. Our GI tract harbors ∼500–1,000 microbial species at any given time (26). The sum of these microbes contains genes that significantly exceed the human genome, offering greater genetic variety and unique biological capability that is lacking in the host genome (26). Some of these capabilities are offered by the presence of biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) or metabolic gene clusters (MGCs), which are genetic elements containing two or more genes encoding the biosynthetic machinery to produce primary and specialized metabolites (27, 28). These metabolites are of potentially great importance and can provide a deeper understanding of host-microbiome interactions because they are often produced in the gut at physiological concentrations and can access the bloodstream to influence human homeostatic function locally or at remote sites (29). Although few studies are reported, some pioneering work has helped to shed light on the diversity and classes of primary and secondary metabolites synthesized by the gut microbiome (23, 24, 30–33).
DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF BIOSYNTHETIC GENE CLUSTERS IN THE HUMAN MICROBIOME
Recently, an interdisciplinary study combining techniques from chemistry, molecular biology, bioinformatics, and omics technologies revealed the main families of BGCs that encode natural products in thousands of bacterial isolates from different sites of the human body (23). More than 2,000 reference genomes constituting the human microbiome were comprehensively analyzed identifying over 14,000 BGCs belonging to diverse classes of metabolites including polysaccharides, nonribosomal peptides (NRPs), ribosomally encoded and posttranslationally modified peptides (RiPPs), polyketides (PKs), NRPs-independent siderophores, terpenes, and hybrid molecules. The 14,000 global BGCs were matched with metagenomic data obtained from 752 samples of the Human Microbiome Project to detect more than 3,000 BGCs representative of the small molecules encoded in the genome of the microbiota of healthy humans (23, 34).
The molecules and biological functions resulting from these BGCs are largely unknown, highlighting the knowledge gap in understanding their roles in mediating host-microbe interactions. The distribution of these 3,000 BGCs varies significantly across body sites with the gut and oral habitats having by far the greater diversity, showing their richness in the gut microbiome compared with other parts of the body (Fig. 1). For instance, a normal gut or oral cavity sample contains on average ∼500–1,000 BGCs, whereas the number in skin, airway, or genital samples is less diverse containing ∼30–100 BGCs (23). Saccharides are the most abundant BGCs in the microbiome, being especially enriched in gut and oral samples. In addition to saccharides are RiPPs, NRPs, and PKs, which occur in all the body sites. The majority of BGCs described above are encoded in the genomes of human bacterial phyla belonging to Bacteroides, Corynebacterium, Ruminococcus, Rothia, and Parabacteroides. These findings regarding the diversity and classes of BGCs in the human microbiome are in alignment with a recent bioinformatics study focusing on BGCs from the oral microbiome in health or disease (30). In this report, saccharides, RiPPs, NRPs, PKs, NRP/PK hybrids, and terpenes represented the main BGCs of the oral microbiome in oral health or in disease association with caries or periodontitis. Interestingly, ∼50% of the 4,915 BGCs in their study remains unknown reflecting the great potential to discover novel function in the human microbiome.
Figure 1.

Average distribution of biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) present in samples from a typical healthy individual from the Human Microbiome Project (23, 34).
SECONDARY METABOLITES FROM THE HUMAN MICROBIOME
To limit the focus of this section of the review, we summarize endogenous specialized secondary metabolites synthesized by members of the microbiota. We highlight genetically encoded bacterial secondary metabolites and consider in the next sections how these molecules or genes can potentially be accessed or used for better mechanistic understanding or microbial therapeutic interventions. Literature describing other important biologically active metabolites is reviewed elsewhere, including reports on short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) (35, 36), bile acids (29, 37, 38), polysaccharides (39, 40), and tryptophan (or amino acid)-derived metabolites (41–43). Our focus is centered on secondary metabolites genetically encoded by the human microbiome, namely, ribosomally synthesized and posttranslationally modified peptides (RiPPs), nonribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPSs), polyketide synthases (PKs), PKS/NRPS hybrids, and terpene biosynthetic gene clusters (Fig. 2) (3, 23, 24, 30–32, 44–47).
Figure 2.

Examples of secondary metabolites isolated from the human microbiome and their biosynthetic origins.
RIBOSOMALLY SYNTHESIZED AND POSTTRANSLATIONALLY MODIFIED PEPTIDES
RiPPs are a major class of secondary metabolites produced by the human microbiome. They are common in bacteria and their occurrence is agnostic to bacterial sources (human, soil, plant, etc.). To produce RiPPs, a precursor peptide frequently containing ∼20–110 amino acids and possessing a signal and a leader sequence is synthesized by ribosomal enzymes. Diversity of RiPPs is mediated by posttranslational modification (PTM) of the precursor core peptide using the leader sequence as the recognition site. The PTM is achieved by decorating and modifying enzymes and usually involves a final cleavage step that releases the end product outside of the cell (48–52). RiPPs have been predicted using bioinformatics from the genomes of bacterial phyla of the GI tract including Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria, Fusobacteria, Synergistetes, and Proteobacteria (23, 47). The detailed biosynthetic mechanisms of RiPPs are described elsewhere (53, 54). RiPPs produced by the human microbiome can be subdivided into several subclasses that include lantipeptides (or lanthipeptides) (55), sactipeptides (48, 56), thiopeptides (23), and microcins or thiazole/oxazole-modified microcins (TOMMs) (57).
Lanthipeptides
Lanthipeptides (for lanthionine-containing peptides) are RiPPs containing thioether amino acids lanthionine (Lan) or methyllanthionine (MeLan). Two steps are required for the integration of Lan and MeLan during the biosynthesis of lanthipeptides. Serine/threonine moieties in the precursor peptide undergo dehydration to yield 2,3-didehydroalanine (Dha)/(Z)-2,3-didehydrobutyrine (Dhb), followed by the formation of thioether bridges by the Michael-type addition of Cysteine residues onto the dehydrated Dha and Dhb (53, 54). Lanthipeptides exhibiting antimicrobial properties are known as lantibiotics. Bioinformatic studies have revealed the presence of biosynthetic gene clusters encoding lanthipeptides in Firmicutes and Actinobacteria from different parts of the body (23, 30). Few lanthipeptides have been described from human-associated microorganisms as most were isolated from pathogenic bacteria or rare commensals. Some examples of lanthipeptides include mutacins (e.g., mutacin 1140), which are produced by Streptococcus mutans commonly inhabiting the human oral cavity (58, 59). Further examples include the lantibiotics BPSCSK characterized from the human-associated bacterium Blautia producta (55) and nisin O discovered from the human gut bacterium Blautia obeum A2-162 (60).
Sactipeptides
Sactipeptides (sulfur to α-carbon cross-linked peptides) belong to a new and growing class of RiPPs with important biological activities including antimicrobial functions. Key features in their molecular structures are intramolecular bridges between sulfur of cysteine moieties and α-carbon belonging to other amino acid residues (53, 54, 61). Only a small number of sactipeptides are reported and the majority are characterized in Bacillus species (61). Biosynthetic gene clusters of sactipeptides are also identified in the human microbiome and the secondary metabolites ruminococcin C (isolated from Ruminococcus gnavus) and streptosactin (isolated from Streptococcus spp.) represent examples of sactipeptides encoded by human-associated commensal bacteria (48, 56).
Thiopeptides
Thiopeptides are RiPPs characterized by a macrocycle backbone comprising several thiazole moieties and sometimes feature several dehydrated amino acids. Small molecules of this category have attracted wide scientific attention for decades owing to their antibiotic properties. A key characteristic of thiopeptides is the presence of a six-membered nitrogen-containing ring in their chemical structures (54). Thiopeptide-encoded biosynthetic gene clusters are predicted to be widely distributed in different sites of the human body and are found in members of the human microbiota, including Lactobacillus gasseri, Cutibacterium acnes, Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus downei, and S. sobrinus (23). Some of these biosynthetic gene clusters were investigated experimentally to discover small molecule thiopeptides, including cutimycin and lactocillin, which are produced by Cutibacterium acnes and Lactobacillus gasseri, respectively (23, 62).
Microcins and Thiazole/Oxazole-Modified Microcins
Microcins represent a subset of ribosomal peptides produced by members of Enterobacteriaceae (especially Escherichia coli) and display interesting biological properties. They are formed by a biosynthetic pathway that involves substrate transformation by complex posttranslational modifying enzymes. Thiazole/oxazole-modified microcins (TOMMs) are biosynthetically comparable with microcins but account for a larger group of small molecules produced by both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Some well-known microcins or TOMMs from the human microbiota include microcins L and J25 produced by E. coli (63, 64) and clostridiolysin S produced by Clostridium botulinum (65). The biosynthesis and functions of microcins and microcin-related molecules have been reviewed elsewhere (53, 57).
NONRIBOSOMAL PEPTIDES
Besides saccharides and RiPPs, nonribosomal peptides (NRPs) represent a major class of natural products genetically encoded by the human microbiome (23, 30). NRPs encompass a large family of secondary metabolites of bacterial or fungal origin produced by complex, modular, and multidomain catalytic pipelines governed by enzymes known as nonribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPSs). These compounds exhibit medicinally relevant activities and several NRPs are currently approved for use as therapeutics, including antibiotics (e.g., penicillins and cephalosporins) and immunosuppressants (e.g., cyclosporine A) (66, 67). Unlike RiPPs which are ribosomally synthesized and modified posttranslationally, the biosynthesis of NRPs occurs independently of the ribosome or messenger RNA and represents a natural alternative process to the formation of peptide bonds, i.e., generation is opposite to typical protein synthesis (68). Furthermore, the structural complexity and diversity of NRPs are enhanced by cyclization, branched structures, or incorporation of nonproteinogenic amino acid residues bearing decorations such as N-methyl, N-formyl, hydroxyl groups, carboxylic acids, sugar moieties, or even occurring in D-isomeric forms (66, 69). These characteristics clearly distinguish nonribosomal peptides from their ribosomal counterparts. Several authors have reviewed the biosynthetic mechanisms of NRPs (68, 70–72).
Genomic and metabolomic investigations of NRPs from the human microbiome started only recently and the vast majority of BGCs predicted to encode NRPs have not yet been verified experimentally and the structure and function of these secondary metabolites remain largely unknown. These BGCs were identified in several microbial phyla of the human microbiome, including Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Firmicutes (23, 30, 31). The list of isolated and fully characterized NRPs from members of the human microbiota is short and includes humimycins discovered from Rhodococcus species genome sequence (44, 45), lugdunin isolated from Staphylococcus lugdunensis (73), and pyrazinones from Staphylococcus aureus (74).
POLYKETIDES AND PK-NRP HYBRIDS
Another large group of chemically diverse and biologically active small molecules of natural origin is polyketides (PKs). Polyketide-type secondary metabolites are characterized by different sources including plants, animals, and microorganisms, and several representatives of this group like erythromycin (antibiotic) (75), anthracycline (anticancer) (76), ivermectin (anthelmintic) (77), lovastatin (cholesterol-lowering agent) (78), and amphotericin (antifungal) (79) are prescribed as drugs. This remarkable group of compounds is synthesized by large and multifunctional enzymes known as polyketide synthases (PKSs). PKSs can be divided into three types, namely, type I PKSs, which are proteins comprised of repeated functional domains working together to elongate a carbon chain, occurring in both bacteria and fungi. Type II PKSs are primarily present in bacteria and are comprised of monofunctional peptides synthetizing diverse aromatic compounds. Type III PKSs are ketosynthase homodimers that are mainly present in plants and harbor coenzyme A as an attachment site for chain elongation. The nature, diversity, and functions of PKS domains (e.g., ketosynthase, acyl carrier protein, acyltransferase, thioesterase, and optional domains), and detailed biosynthetic mechanisms leading to polyketides have been thoroughly reported.
Although different in their sequences, PKS modules share similarities that can easily be recognized using bioinformatic mining of bacterial genomes (23, 24, 79–81). BGCs encoding polyketide-type molecules are identified within the human microbiome in bacterial phyla including Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Firmicutes. Noteworthy, most polyketide BGCs found within human microbial genomes are mixed with NRP assembly lines to form PK-NRP hybrids with the potential to generate more complex chemical scaffolds (23, 24, 30, 82–84). Despite the biosynthetic capacity of human-associated bacteria to produce PK/PK-NRP hybrids as inferred from recent metagenomic studies, only a handful of these small molecules have actually been isolated and characterized from human microbiota. This highlights a potential wealth of metabolites with unknown function and possible medicinal application left for discovery. Some examples of previously described compounds include reutericyclins and mutanocyclin, which are antimicrobial tetramic acid secondary metabolites synthesized by a cascade of PK-NRP enzymes in Lactobacillus reuteri and S. mutans (85, 86). Further studies disclosed mutanobactins A-D, which are antifungal and macrocyclic lipopeptides produced by PK-NRP assembly lines harbored in the genome of S. mutans (84, 87–91). Mutanofactin-697 is a PK-NRP hybrid exhibiting an intriguing novel chemical scaffold recently discovered from the chemically diverse bacterial strain S. mutans to potentiate adhesion and biofilm formation (92). Additional PK examples include wexrubicin, a type II PKS encoded aromatic compound that was generated through cloning of the BGC from the gut bacterium Blautia wexlerae DSM 19850 into the heterologous host Bacillus subtilis-168-sfp, and metamycins A-D obtained by heterologous expression of DNA sequences from the human metagenome in host Streptomyces albus (24).
Several well-studied PKs and PK-NRPs are found in microbe-associated pathogenicity. An example is colibactin, a specialized metabolite the presence of which is associated with colorectal cancer (93–97). Colibactin is produced by certain bacterial strains belonging to Enterobacteriaceae (e.g., E. coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae) harboring the 54-Kb gene clusters clb or pks. Clb+ E. coli strains synthetizing colibactin are generally present in the human colon, damage host DNA, facilitate tumor formation in experimental animal models, and are more abundant in patients with colorectal cancer than in healthy individuals (94, 95). The structural elucidation of colibactin, a long-standing chemistry challenge that remained for almost a decade because of colibactin instability and small quantities, was recently solved (97).
TERPENES
Terpenes represent the largest and most diverse class of specialized metabolites characterized to date. They comprise more than 70,000 small molecules distributed into more than 400 compound families primarily identified from plants and fungi (98, 99). Owing to their structural complexity, diversity, and functionality (e.g., defense metabolites, fragrance, taste, pheromones, vitamins, etc.), terpenes exhibit a wealth of biological activities and many among them (e.g., the anticancer drug taxol and antimalarial drug artemisinin) are currently on the front lines of clinical studies or are prescribed as drugs against several diseases (98–102). The biosynthesis of terpenes involves isoprene units [C5: isopentenyl diphosphate (IPP) and dimethylallyl diphosphate (DMAPP), which are fused together to generate elongated (C10, C15, C20, C30)] and branched hydrocarbon chains in prenyl transferase enzyme-catalyzed reactions. These acyclic and linear precursors can undergo cyclization under complex mechanisms governed by enzymes called terpene cyclases (or terpene synthases) providing (poly)cyclic terpene backbones (103, 104). The basic (poly)cyclic terpenoid can be modified by oxidizing enzymes and the addition of moieties including sugars, amino acids, and fatty acids to provide further structural diversity and complexity (98).
Historically, bacteria were previously thought not to represent a major source of terpenes as only a fraction of compounds could be traced back to bacterial sources. However, recent genome mining and bioinformatic investigations of terpene BGCs in bacteria revealed genome-encoded information for the synthesis of thousands of terpenes with unknown structures and functions (98, 99). A variety of these bacterially derived terpene BGCs was identified from human metagenome samples and belong to Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Firmicutes, and Bacteroidetes (23, 30, 98, 99). Nevertheless, terpenes have rarely been experimentally characterized from human-associated bacteria or indeed from any bacterial source. The majority of terpenoids identified from the microbiota are in fact not directly encoded by microbiome genomes, but rather represent microbial biotransformations of metabolites from dietary products or bile acid derivatives synthesized in the liver (29, 38, 105–107). One example of a genuinely microbiota-produced terpene is staphyloxanthin, an orange-red triterpene carotenoid-type compound discovered from S. aureus. Staphyloxanthin is one of the colored pigment metabolites found in S. aureus, which provided the bacterium with its nomenclature (108, 109).
BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITIES, FUNCTIONS, AND MECHANISMS OF ACTION OF MICROBIOME-DERIVED SECONDARY METABOLITES
Antimicrobials and Metabolites Associated with Colonization Resistance
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a serious public health threat that has gradually increased over the years with a high mortality rate estimated to reach 10 million deaths globally by 2050, with a worldwide financial burden of $100 trillion (110). For example, drug-resistant pathogens including vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE), methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), and epidemic C. difficile are responsible for thousands of deaths yearly in the United States with an associated healthcare cost in billions of dollars (74, 110). There is an urgent need for new therapeutic molecules to tackle these unmet medical needs. Some of these pathogens, for example, S. aureus, S. mutans, or C. difficile, are often present in the human microbiome, where these microbes are in competition with commensal bacteria, expanding rapidly when there is disruption of the microbiota, caused by antibiotics or immunosuppression in patients (111). Although it is known that the gut microbiota plays an important role in protecting the host against invading pathogens in the GI tract, the molecular mediators of these interactions are largely unknown and can provide new functional metabolites or lead compounds for precision antimicrobial therapy. Several recent studies have begun to investigate the human microbiome for colonization resistance and functional antimicrobial compounds (Table 1) (23, 31, 44, 45, 48, 55, 56, 58–60, 62, 64, 65, 73, 86, 88, 90).
Table 1.
Examples of compounds with biological activity synthesized by human bacteria
| Compound Or Extract | Compound Class | Bacterial Source | Literature |
|---|---|---|---|
| Antimicrobial agents | |||
| Mutanobactin A | PK-NRP hybrid | S. mutans | (83) |
| Lugdunin | NRP | S. lugdunensis | (69) |
| Humimycin A | NRP | Rhodococcus erythropolis | (41) |
| Streptosactin | RiPP | Streptococcus thermophiles | (44) |
| 1-ethoxycarbonyl-β-carboline | Alkaloid | Lactobacillus species | (107) |
| Anticancer or cancer-promoting agents | |||
| Hemolysin BL | Protein | Bacillus toyonensis | (109) |
| Polysaccharide A | Saccharide | Bacteroides fragilis | (110) |
| Colibactin (DNA damaging) | PK-NRP hybrid | S. aureus | (90) |
| Immunomodulatory agents | |||
| Pyro-tryptophan | Dipeptide | Lactobacillus plantarum | (111) |
| Mutanamide | PK-NRP hybrid | S. mutans | (83) |
| Commendamide | Lipid | Bacteroides vulgatus | (42) |
| Antiviral agents | |||
| Supernactants of L. gasseri and L. fermentum (anti-HIV) | Uncharacterized extracts | Lactobacilli | (112) |
| Polysaccharide A | Saccharide | B. fragilis | (113) |
HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; NRP, nonribosomal peptides; RiPP, ribosomally synthesized and posttranslationally modified peptides; PK, polyketide.
Mutanobactin A is a hybrid PKS-NRPS compound characterized by coculture experiments in which the antimicrobial activity of mutanobactin-competent S. mutans was compared with a mutanobactin deletion mutant strain against the fungus C. albicans. It was observed that S. mutans producing mutanobactin A was able to maintain C. albicans in its yeast morphological state, whereas in the presence of S. mutans lacking the mutanobactin gene, C. albicans was able to form mycelia, which represent the invasive state of the fungus (88). Another recent study determined that the reutericyclin family of PKS-NRPSs is used by S. mutans to inhibit the growth of neighboring oral commensal bacteria before colonizing the host environment and causing disease (86).
Lugdunin was found to exhibit significant antibacterial activity against several Gram-positive pathogenic bacteria including MRSA, VRE, and glycopeptide-intermediate resistant S. aureus with minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) ranging from 1.5 to 12 μg/mL. This compound is produced by oral S. lugdunensis strains and causes bacterial cells to stop incorporating DNA, RNA, protein, or cell-wall precursors, suggesting an antimicrobial mechanism involving rapid collapse of the bacterial energy machinery (73). Individuals colonized by S. lugdunensis carry a reduced load of S. aureus, indicating that lugdunin or lugdunin-producing human bacteria could be important in inhibiting colonization by infectious Staphylococcus (73).
Humimycins are potent antibiotics discovered from sequence mining of BGCs and chemical synthesis of predicted molecules encoded in Rhodococcus species, especially Rhodococcus erythropolis, which is widely distributed across oral and nasal cavities in humans. Humimycin A exhibited antibiotic activity against methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) strains with MIC values ranging from 8 to 128 μg/mL. The humimycin antibiotic acts by inhibiting lipid II flippase and potentiating β-lactam activity against MRSA (45). Claesen et al. (62) recently functionally characterized a BGC from C. acnes, a commensal bacterium harbored by the human skin and is widely spread across subjects and skin parts, identifying a thiopeptide antibiotic named cutimycin. This antibiotic showed activity against MRSA and Staphylococcus epidermidis strains with MICs ranging from 0.2 to 0.8 μM, and reduced the ability of Staphylococcus species to colonize skin hair follicles (62). Further examples of thiopeptide antibiotics from the human microbiome include lactocillin, a compound identified by mining encoded BCGs in the genome of Lactobacillus gasseri, a bacterium commonly found in the vagina microbiome. The encoded lactocillin molecule demonstrated activity against a wide range of pathogenic bacteria (e.g., Staphylococus aureus and Enterococcus faecalis) and was inactive against several vaginal commensals, suggesting a protective role of this compound in the urogenital tract by preventing colonization by harmful bacteria (23).
In further recent studies, the two sactipeptides, ruminococcin C and streptosactin, were described as antibiotics derived from the human microbiome (48, 56). Ruminococcin C was isolated from the gut commensal R. gnavus and exhibited anticlostridial activity against Clostridium perfringens. Streptosactin, found in a strain of Streptococcus thermophilus, was described as the first example of a fratricidal compound from a member of the human microbiome. It completely inhibited the growth of S. thermophilus LMD-9 and S. thermophilus LMG 18311 at 1 μM (48). Ribosomally synthesized antimicrobial natural products produced by bacteria are generally referred to as bacteriocins, which include lantibiotics and microcins. Detailed reviews about bacteriocins from the human microbiome have been published (49, 57, 110, 112).
MICROBIOME-DERIVED ANTICANCER OR CANCER-PROMOTING MOLECULES
Dysbiosis is associated with several cancers, including cervical (113), pancreatic (114), colorectal (115), oral (116), and gastric cancer (117). It is proposed that the microbiome plays a role in tumorigenesis by inducing inflammation, DNA damage, and programmed cell death, or by adversely influencing the host immune and/or tumor response to treatment (114). The potential contribution of specific bacterial members of the microbiome in the pathogenesis of cancers through proinflammatory metabolic interactions with human organs or DNA damaging effects has been reported (118–120). It is becoming evident that the collective metabolism products of the intestinal microbiota (or of specific bacterial members of the microbiota) strongly influence host immunity against cancer, as well as in the development of pathology or susceptibility to disease (119, 121). The anticancer roles and mechanisms of action of metabolites derived from the transformation of dietary products and host metabolites by microbiota have been reviewed elsewhere (121–124). These metabolites are not directly synthesized by bacteria and include short-chain fatty acids (SCFA), indole derivatives, polyamines, and bile acid derivatives (121, 123, 124). For instance, SCFAs produced by the healthy human bacterium E. coli KUB-36 strain exhibited anticancer and anti-inflammatory activities by affecting the inflammatory reactions in lipopolysaccharide-induced THP-1 macrophage cells and by suppressing the proinflammatory cytokines IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, and TNF-α whil promoting the expression of anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 (123). Some proteins (e.g., hemolysin BL reported from Bacillus toyonensis) and polysaccharides (e.g., polysaccharide A from Bacteroides fragilis) directly synthesized by specific members of the microbiome exhibited beneficial effects against cancers by modulating the immune response (125, 126).
Despite growing evidence that the microbiome can protect against or contribute to the development of cancer, most natural products or secondary metabolites (small molecules covered in this review) directly synthesized by the microbiota were not screened for antitumor activity. This can be explained by the functional roles of microbial metabolites in the defense against microbial invasion, for own-species survival, and competition with other species. Mechanistically, these metabolites have the potential to shape microbiome diversity of bacterial communities harbored by different individuals (49, 112), as well as signals to the host. Nevertheless, few studies have elucidated the roles of bacterially produced secondary metabolites from the human microbiome, especially genotoxins (e.g., colibactin), in causing cancer or indeed in shaping microbiome community structure or diversity. Lactobacillus casei strains possess activity against colonic cancer cells (93, 96). The small molecule responsible for the antitumoral activity of L. casei was identified to be ferrichrome, a siderophore nonribosomal peptide with tumor-suppressive activity. Ferrichrome application induced programmed cell death (apoptosis), involving the activation of c-jun NH2-terminal kinase as a protective mechanism (127).
IMMUNOMODULATORY MOLECULES
Active bidirectional interactions between the gut microbiome and immune system are essential in maintaining host homeostasis. However, changes in microbiome composition or perturbation of the immune system can lead to autoimmune diseases and metabolic disorders, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), type-1 diabetes, and rheumatic arthritis (22). Microbiota-derived immunomodulatory molecules are reported to be implicated in the signal interplay between microbes and the immune system. In this section, we consider natural products produced by the microbiota that exhibit immunomodulatory activity, especially those implicated in the protection against or in the development of autoimmune diseases.
Lactobacillus plantarum is found in the intestinal microbiota and is known for its anti-inflammatory therapeutic benefits and is used as a microbial component in several probiotic preparations (128). L. plantarum is reported to play a role in the prevention or attenuation of IBD and this role is proposed to be mediated by the secretion of immunomodulatory agents (129). Four pyroglutamic (pyro) dipeptides including pyrophenylalanine, pyro-leucine, pyro-isoleucine, and pyro-tryptophan were identified from L. plantarum and associated with its immunomodulatory activity (128). Among them, pyrophenylalanine and pyro-tryptophan were evaluated for immunomodulatory activity in vivo in mice. These two small molecules were able to decrease the secretion of proinflammatory cytokine interferon (IFN)-γ, a key humoral regulator in the maintenance of homeostasis.
The natural product N-acyl-3-hydroxypalmitoyl-glycine trivially named commendamide is a metabolite produced by the human-associated bacterium Bacteroides vulgatus. Commendamide was found to activate G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), especially GPCR G2A/GPR132, which plays a signaling role in autoimmune diseases and atherosclerosis (46). Further studies with S. mutans revealed that mutanobactins A and B and mutanamide displayed immunomodulatory activity. In particular, mutanobactin B significantly enhanced the production of IL-6 and IL-12 pro-inflammatory cytokines but reduced the production of MCP-1, G-CSF, and TNF-α in an assay using lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-stimulated macrophages (84). The immunomodulatory activity of microbiota-derived proteins and polysaccharides or microbiota-derived biotransformed molecules including SCFAs has been recently reviewed (130).
ANTIVIRAL MOLECULES
A rapidly growing field in microbiome-based research is the study of host-microbe interactions in the presence of viral infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2, the viral cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)] (131), influenza virus (132), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (133), and human papillomavirus (HPV) (133). Viruses are biological agents that require host cell protein biosynthetic assembly to replicate. They usually penetrate the host through the GI tract, skin, nasal, or genitalia, organs that are all colonized by host microbiota (134). In interactions reported between the microbiota or microbiota products and pathogenic viruses, the microbiota can promote viral infection or inhibit it. Some members of the microbiota can inhibit viral infection by preventing the adhesion of viruses or by activating antiviral immune defenses (132, 135, 136). Conversely, in other cases, the microbiota could help viral agents escape host immune defenses by presenting excess lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and activating immunotolerance or by facilitating adhesion of virus to host cells (134, 136). In the former scenario preventing viral infection, host microbiota-produced metabolites are likely mediators of the observed antiviral effects.
Lactobacilli were reported to protect mice against H1N1 influenza infection (132), or inhibit HIV and herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection (133). The neutral pH supernatants obtained from the liquid culture of vaginal L. gasseri and L. fermentum were not toxic and demonstrated inhibitory activity against HIV replication. Supernatant from coculture of L. gasseri, L. rhamnosus, and L. crispatus inhibited HSV replication (133). Although in these studies the authors did not investigate the chemical composition of the supernatants, they postulated that small molecules secreted by Lactobacilli are most likely responsible for the virucidal activity by blocking the attachment of viruses to cells or by simply killing them. This proposed mechanism of action is different from the hypothesis that Lactobacilli neutralizes viral agents by lowering the environmental pH (133). Even though the investigation of antiviral small molecules from human-associated bacteria is in its infancy, natural products extracted from soil and marine bacteria demonstrated antiviral activity (137, 138).
Recent studies exploring the relationship between COVID-19 symptoms and the human microbiota reported differences between the microbiota of healthy human subjects and patients with COVID-19 (139–142). The microbiota can determine the severity and susceptibility to COVID-19, as well as the response to the treatment or vaccination against the disease. In most of these interactions, the underlying molecular mechanisms are poorly understood, and it is highly feasible that medications, e.g., antibiotic use, represent a major confounder in appropriately deciphering protective mechanisms in these studies. In a study using fecal samples, it was observed that out of 34 investigated bacterial phyla, Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes represented the major bacterial phyla where the abundance varied significantly between healthy individuals and subjects infected with COVID-19 (139). The occurrence of changed bacterial members in the Firmicutes, including bacterial genera where Ruminococcus, Butyrivibrio, Lachnoclostridium, and Dorea, showed significantly reduced relative abundance in subjects with COVID-19. On the other hand, the relative abundance of Bacteroidetes members, including Bacteroides coprophilus, Bacteroides coprocola, and Bacteroides graminisolvens, was augmented in patients infected with COVID-19 (139). Moreover, microbiota-related harmful small molecules were examined in fecal samples, where phenylacetylglutamine, salsolinol, and uric acid were more abundant in patients with COVID-19 (139). A separate microbiome study performed on nasopharyngeal samples from healthy individuals and individuals with COVID-19 revealed that commensal microbes including Gemella morbillorum, Gemella haemolysans, and Leptotrichia hofstadii were notably decreased in patients with COVID-19 while the abundance of bacteria such as Prevotella histicola, Streptococcus sanguinis, and Veillonella dispar was higher (141). Comparative metabolomic investigations of sera (blood, urine, nasopharyngeal swabs) obtained from the same subjects indicated that chlorogenic acid methyl ester was significantly reduced in patients infected with COVID-19 compared with healthy subjects, and this might hint toward an anti-SARS-CoV-2 small molecule (141).
Another line of study of the human microbiota and viral infection resides in the virus-microbiome-immune interplay. For example, the microbiome-immune cross talk can induce the production of type I interferons (IFN-Is), acting to defend against viral infections (131). IFN-Is have an important role in antiviral immune responses by mediating antiviral mechanisms in cells or inducing apoptosis in compromised tissues. The reduction of IFN-Is production following viral infection correlated with susceptibility or severity of disease (131, 135, 143). However, there is a lack of knowledge about which immune cells and small molecules are produced by specific taxa or how these molecules modulate antiviral immune responses. Stefan et al. (135) reported that glycolipids found on the membrane of specific taxa can activate the production of IFN-Is. Taking polysaccharide A isolated from B. fragilis, they demonstrated that IFN-Is production by dendritic cells was mediated through TLR4-TRIF signaling, and the antiviral potency of this bacterial-derived molecule against vesicular stomatitis virus or influenza virus depended on the expression of IFN-Is (135). Elsewhere it was reported that desaminotyrosine, a bacterially produced metabolite following degradation of dietary flavonoids induces protection against influenza virus in mice via expression of IFN-Is. C. orbiscindens, a member of the gut microbiota, degrades flavonoids to yield desaminotyrosine (144). The microbiota can also transform host secreted molecules, such as bile acids to mediate antiviral immune responses. In fact, the gut bacterium C. scindens or its biotransformed metabolite deoxycholic acid can protect mice against chikungunya virus infection via the plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs)-IFN signaling axis resulting in restriction of virus propagation and potential resistance to virus transmission (143).
Overall, the literature lacks reports of protective effects of secondary metabolites synthesized de novo by members of the microbiota that exhibit antiviral activity. The role of SCFAs on viral infections has been reviewed elsewhere (145).
RESEARCH STRATEGIES USED TO DETERMINE MOLECULAR CAUSALITY AND EFFECTOR MECHANISMS OF THE HUMAN MICROBIOME
Three main strategies are generally used to identify and characterize biologically active small molecules generated by the human microbiome, namely, 1) phenotypic screenings based on bioactivity-guided fractionation of functional small molecules, 2) comparative untargeted metabolomics, and 3) gene-to-molecule discovery (genome mining) or combinations of the above.
BIOACTIVITY-GUIDED FRACTIONATION
Bioactivity-guided fractionation has been the method of choice for the separation of natural products with biological activity from plants and microorganisms for several decades and many drugs in clinical use were discovered by this technique (146). In this approach, an active fraction is obtained by extracting a bacterial culture with an organic solvent or a mixture of solvents, and then evaluated for biological activity (e.g., in phenotypic assays based on cells). When an extract exhibits activity, it is fractionated based on the physicochemical properties or polarity of molecules it contains to reduce the complexity of the extract and to enrich the concentration of bioactive molecule(s) in the fraction(s) by eliminating antagonistic effects or undesirable/inactive molecules (Fig. 3). Each fraction is tested for biological activity and the molecule(s) present in the most active fraction are purified by chromatography, chemically characterized by spectroscopy, and studied for more detailed biological activity and mechanism of action. The strength of bioactivity-guided fractionation is that it is driven by the biological relevance of the isolated compounds and when successful can directly hint toward mechanistic insights.
Figure 3.

Bioactivity-guided fractionation: example for antimicrobial compounds discovery.
Bioactivity-guided fractionation was used to characterize an inflammatory molecule from the extract of R. gnavus, a human gut bacterium that has been linked to Crohn’s disease (147). The active molecule, a polysaccharide derivative, induced the expression of proinflammatory agents such as TNFα produced by dendritic cells and provided one possible mechanism for the association between R. gnavus and inflammatory disease (147). Another example based on bioactivity-guided fractionation is the identification of the antitumor molecule hemolysin BL from a fraction obtained from the supernatant of B. toyonensis BV-17, a member of the healthy human gut microbiome (125). In this study, the genus Bacillus was associated with healthy subjects and was absent in patients with colorectal cancer as revealed by 16S rRNA comparative metagenomics of the microbiome in both groups. Hemolysin BL inhibited tumor growth in mice, providing a possible molecular explanation for the susceptibility to colorectal cancer and a potential therapeutic lead that can be further developed (125). Recently, 1-ethoxycarbonyl-β-carboline produced by Lactobacillus species was identified by bioactivity-guided fractionation as a bioactive compound against the opportunistic pathogen C. albicans (148). This molecule hinders C. albicans filamentation.
COMPARATIVE METABOLOMICS
Metabolomics is a powerful strategy to simultaneously examine several molecules in biological samples. It is based on analytical techniques (e.g., LC-MS and NMR) and most of the time combined with bioinformatics to rapidly compare differential metabolite compositions of samples or to analyze large data sets (105, 146, 149). Databases are used to rapidly identify or annotate the metabolites or compound classes correlating with the observed phenotype or activity without the need for tedious compound isolation and the novo structural elucidation. Metabolomics can be used to obtain information about the chemical composition of microbial extracts and fractions, thus facilitating extraction strategies or prioritizing fractions for isolation and characterization when exploring new functional molecules (128). This method can also be applied to compare the metabolite profiles (metabolome) of different samples (e.g., extracted from feces, urine, sera, nasal swabs) from healthy and disease subjects to determine molecules present or absent in study samples (Fig. 4), thus providing candidate molecular mechanisms and disease biomarkers (141). In general, targeted metabolomics focusing on a set of known metabolites (e.g., SCFAs, bile acid derivatives) and using available standard compounds has been successful in linking the abundance of a metabolite or set of metabolites to a particular phenotype. However, untargeted metabolomics considering unknown and more complex specialized metabolites (e.g., terpenes, RiPPs, NRPs) directly synthesized by microbes is still in its infancy.
Figure 4.

Comparative metabolomics for biomarker discovery in microbiome research.
Metabolomics has been used in a variety of experimental investigations. Zvanych et al. (84) used metabolomics to explore the products of NRP BGCs in S. mutans UA159. They applied comparative metabolomics and synthetic biology using wild-type S. mutans UA159 containing NRPs and mutant strains with deleted NRP genes to identify more than 50 molecules, of which some were structurally elucidated and evaluated for their immunomodulatory properties (84). Franzosa et al. (150) performed untargeted metabolomics and metagenomics analysis of stool samples from patients with IBD and without IBD to identify species, compounds, and compound classes that are upregulated in IBD, namely, sphingolipids and bile acids, and downregulated metabolites including triacylglycerols and tetrapyrroles (150). The taxonomic and metabolomic associations provided an understanding of the microbiome-metabolome dysbiosis in IBD. Feng et al. (151) used metabolomics to understand the link between serum molecules and the colonic microbiome in chronic kidney disease (151). Detailed reviews about the use of metabolomics in the human microbiome have been published elsewhere (149, 152, 153).
GENE-TO-MOLECULE DISCOVERY OR (META)GENOMIC MINING
Gene-to-molecule discovery encompasses a set of techniques using metagenomics or genomic sequences to identify and predict the biosynthetic products of genes that are responsible for the production of specialized metabolites (27, 82, 154). With readily available bacterial genome sequences since the early 2000s, these techniques have been applied in the field of natural product identification to tackle problems arising from the inability to culture many gut bacteria or due to silencing of biosynthetic gene clusters under culture conditions. General concepts have been extensively reviewed elsewhere (82, 146, 154, 155). Generally, computational approaches (e.g., anti-SMASH) are used to identify BGCs or family of BGCs, followed by the heterologous expression of the identified gene in a genetically tractable and easy-to-culture organism (e.g., E. coli), and extraction and chemical characterization of the produced metabolite using analytical approaches (HPLC, MS, NMR, etc.) (28, 80, 81). In the context of the human microbiota where a vast number of bacteria has been sequenced, genome mining has been applied to microbiome sequences to identify new functional molecules (156). Metamycins A-D (24), commendamide (46), and lactocillin (23) are some examples of bioactive natural products discovered from primary sequences of human microbiota members by combining bioinformatics, (meta)genomic mining, synthetic biology, and heterologous expression of BGCs and analytical chemistry (Fig. 5).
Figure 5.

Mining and characterizing BGC products through heterologous expression or chemical synthesis. BCG, biosynthetic gene cluster.
Genetic manipulation and heterologous expression of BGCs are not trivial since the experimentalist needs to manipulate large genes and identify or create a suitable host that fulfills all of the requirements to produce the targeted metabolites in culture (146). To bypass the need for microbial culture and heterologous expression, Chu et al. (45) developed an approach (synthetic-bioinformatics natural products, syn-BNPs) in which the biosynthetic products of bioinformatically predicted gene clusters are chemically synthesized (45). Humimycins are examples of antibiotic NRP natural products discovered from the human microbiome using syn-BNPs (31, 45).
Overall, the three main strategies described in this section combined with physiologically relevant biological assays can help to expand the chemical space of the human microbiome, thereby providing molecular and mechanistic information with potential therapeutic significance.
PHARMACOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THERAPEUTIC INNOVATIONS
With findings in the past decade shedding new light on the role of the microbiome impacting human health, this has become a “new organ” for targeting innovative therapeutic interventions with a promising future market (8, 157, 158). The recent decade has seen rapid growth of microbiome-based projects in academia and biotech companies focusing mainly on gut bacteria. The presence or absence of defined members of the microbiome can be associated with health or disease states (26, 34). This hypothesis is the main driven force of microbiome-centered therapies, of which probiotics and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) to treat recurrent C. difficile infection (CDI) are front-line microbial interventions that promote a healthy gut microbiota (159).
Probiotics are preparations containing live microbes (natural or engineered) that are claimed to have health benefits on the host when administered. FMT is the process of delivering stool from a healthy donor into the GI tract of a patient. Only FMT restores the gut microbiota, which is used as a treatment for recurrent C. difficile infection (CDI). FMT is considered a drug in the United States and is clinically used under a special policy of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) without full approval (159). To date, probiotics are mainly considered and are sold as dietary supplements. Several companies including Rebioitx, Seres Therapeutics, Vedanta Biosciences, and NuBiyota are focusing on the development of probiotics or microbial-based drugs to treat diseases ranging from recurrent CDI to cancer, IBD, and obesity (160). Among microbiome-based drugs, SER-109 from Seres is the most advanced microbiome-based therapeutic candidate, being recently cleared for phase III clinical trials against recurrent CDI (160). SER-109 is a cocktail of purified Firmicutes and has been designated by the FDA as a breakthrough therapy. Other therapeutic approaches targeting the microbiome include prebiotics (food components or substances that promote the activity and growth of beneficial microbes), compounds that can modulate pathways in host-microbiome interactions, and next-generation narrow-spectrum antibiotics as previously reviewed (161–166). Recently, a microbiota-targeted dietary supplement intervention for children with malnutrition was conducted and the results demonstrated the benefit of this approach on growth stunted children over the duration of the clinical study (167). This study highlights a clinical example of applying a microbial therapeutic approach to human disease, in this case, malnutrition and failure to thrive.
Although microbiome-based drugs (e.g., probiotics/live biotherapeutics and FMT) represent a new therapeutic avenue, the challenges to their development and approval include a lack of strong and validated data about their quality (Fig. 6), safety, and efficacy; the lack of a proper characterization of the “healthy microbiome;” the poor understanding of their mechanism of action; and difficulty in meeting government safety regulations (168–170). For instance, there is continuing discussion about the long-term risks of FMT. Adverse side effects and mortality caused by transferred pathogens and weight gain are reported as health concerns associated with the FMT strategy (171). Furthermore, the definition of a whole bacteria phylum as “healthy” can be misleading as single members at the strain level and within the same genus can contribute to homeostasis or disease progression. A good example is Prevotella, which has been classified both as a beneficial bacterium (P. histicola) or a detrimental bacterium (P. copri) in rheumatoid arthritis (169). Thus, strategies arising from a better understanding of molecular mechanisms, especially the mode of action of bacterial-derived small molecules are needed. This includes identifying highly purified microbial strain(s)-producing specific molecules that target known members of the microbiota or specific host-microbiome signaling pathways without affecting homeostatic balance. All of these approaches could achieve greater therapeutic efficacy and further the promise of precision-based microbial therapy.
Figure 6.

Advantages and disadvantages of major therapeutic innovations targeting the microbiome including FMT, prebiotics, probiotics, and small molecules. FMT, fecal microbiota transplantation.
Some examples of small molecules (e.g., polysaccharide A) in clinical studies and targeting the microbiome were recently reviewed (163). Trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO), a microbe-dependent compound originating from trimethylamine (TMA) metabolism, promotes cardiovascular disease (CVD, thrombosis potential). The gene catalyzing the synthesis of TMA in the microbiota was identified as CutC/D, which is a mechanism-based target for the inhibition of CVD potential (164, 169). Using this mechanism-directed strategy, the Hazen’s laboratory developed small molecules (including the natural product 3,3-dimethyl-1-butanol structurally related to choline) targeting TMAO/TMA-producing proteins (CutC/D) as microbiota-directed nontoxic drug inhibitors of thrombosis potential (164). Progress in the understanding of such molecular mechanisms in the microbiome field will provide an opportunity for more precise microbiome-based therapeutic interventions.
SUMMARY AND PERSPECTIVES
Changes in the composition of the human gut microbiota have been linked to several clinical diseases. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying these host-microbiome interactions largely remain unknown. Since microbes are metabolically active and interact with their environment using small molecules, microbial molecules play a significant role in the mechanism of host-microbe interactions. The role of microbe biotransformation products (e.g., bile acid derivatives and SCFAs) has been increasingly recognized, but little is known about the identity and function of compounds directly synthesized by the microbiome, or indeed whether diet can change the de novo synthesis of such compounds by directly regulating their synthesis or through modulation of microbiome community structure. In this review, we mainly describe BGCs and respective metabolites directly encoded by the human microbiome. We also present strategies used to discover these compounds and the biological activities they exhibit and their roles in disease or health processes as well as different therapeutic innovations targeting the microbiome. Although great progress has been achieved in analyzing and understanding the microbiome structure and composition, translation of these results into clinical practice to combat disease will be facilitated by a better understanding of the mechanisms of action, which are mainly driven by small molecules or biologicals. Although most microbiome-based projects still focus on associations and consortia of bacteria, the field is now slowly shifting toward molecular causation. Future directions in the field should also include more systematic approaches not only limited to bacteria and their mechanisms of interactions, but considering all components of the microbiome (bacteria, fungi, virus archaea, and protists) that impact health, the host, and the environment.
GRANTS
This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health Grants National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) P30-DK56338 and R01DK130517, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) U01-AI24290 and P01-AI152999, and National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) R01-NR013497.
DISCLOSURES
No conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, are declared by the authors.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
S.A.F. prepared figures; S.A.F. drafted manuscript; T.S. edited and revised manuscript; S.A.F. and T.S. approved final version of manuscript.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Figures were created using Biorender.com with permission.
REFERENCES
- 1.Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Hamady M, Fraser-Liggett CM, Knight R, Gordon JI. The Human Microbiome Project. Nature 449: 804–810, 2007. doi: 10.1038/nature06244. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Zilber-Rosenberg I, Rosenberg E. Role of microorganisms in the evolution of animals and plants: the hologenome theory of evolution . FEMS Microbiol Rev 32: 723–735, 2008. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2008.00123.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Qin J, Li R, Raes J, Arumugam M, Burgdorf KS, Manichanh C, et al. A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature 464: 59–65, 2010. doi: 10.1038/nature08821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kho ZY, Lal SK. The human gut microbiome - a potential controller of wellness and disease. Front Microbiol 9: 1835, 2018. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01835. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Eckburg PB, Bik EM, Bernstein CN, Purdom E, Dethlefsen L, Sargent M, Gill SR, Nelson KE, Relman DA. Diversity of the human intestinal microbial flora. Science 308: 1635–1638, 2005. doi: 10.1126/science.1110591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Palmer C, Bik EM, Digiulio DB, Relman DA, Brown PO. Development of the human infant intestinal microbiota. PLoS Biol 5: e177, 2007. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Zaneveld J, Turnbaugh PJ, Lozupone C, Ley RE, Hamady M, Gordon JI, Knight R. Host-bacterial coevolution and the search for new drug targets. Curr Opin Chem Biol 12: 109–114, 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2008.01.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Baquero F, Nombela C. The microbiome as a human organ. Clin Microbiol Infect 18: 2–4, 2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03916.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Dietert R, Dietert J. The completed self: an immunological view of the human-microbiome superorganism and risk of chronic diseases. Entropy 14: 2036–2065, 2012. doi: 10.3390/e14112036. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Iacob S, Iacob DG, Luminos LM. Intestinal microbiota as a host defense mechanism to infectious threats. Front Microbiol 9: 3328, 2018. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.03328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Morowitz MJ, Carlisle EM, Alverdy JC. Contributions of intestinal bacteria to nutrition and metabolism in the critically ill. Surg Clin North Am 91: 771–785, 2011. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2011.05.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Valdes AM, Walter J, Segal E, Spector TD. Role of the gut microbiota in nutrition and health. BMJ 361: k2179, 2018. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k2179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Yamamoto EA, Jørgensen TN. Relationships between vitamin D, gut microbiome, and systemic autoimmunity. Front Immunol 10: 3141, 2019. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.03141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Grigorescu I, Dumitrascu DL. Implication of gut microbiota in diabetes mellitus and obesity. Acta Endocrinol (Buchar) 12: 206–214, 2016. doi: 10.4183/aeb.2016.206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Glassner KL, Abraham BP, Quigley EMM. The microbiome and inflammatory bowel disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol 145: 16–27, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2019.11.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Helmink BA, Khan MAW, Hermann A, Gopalakrishnan V, Wargo JA. The microbiome, cancer, and cancer therapy. Nat Med 25: 377–388, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0377-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Frati F, Salvatori C, Incorvaia C, Bellucci A, di Cara G, Marcucci F, Esposito S. The role of the microbiome in asthma: the gut–lung axis. Int J Mol Sci 20: 123, 2019. doi: 10.3390/ijms20010123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Ross CL, Spinler JK, Savidge TC. Structural and functional changes within the gut microbiota and susceptibility to Clostridium difficile infection. Anaerobe 41: 37–43, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2016.05.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Saji N, Murotani K, Hisada T, Tsuduki T, Sugimoto T, Kimura A, Niida S, Toba K, Sakurai T. The relationship between the gut microbiome and mild cognitive impairment in patients without dementia: a cross-sectional study conducted in Japan. Sci Rep 9: 19227, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-55851-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Giovanni MY, Schneider JS, Calder T, Fauci AS. Refocusing human microbiota research in infectious and immune-mediated diseases: advancing to the next stage. J Infect Dis 224: 5–8, 2021. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa706. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Gu S, Chen Y, Wu Z, Chen Y, Gao H, Lv L, Guo F, Zhang X, Luo R, Huang C, Lu H, Zheng B, Zhang J, Yan R, Zhang H, Jiang H, Xu Q, Guo J, Gong Y, Tang L, Li L. Alterations of the gut microbiota in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 or H1N1 influenza. Clin Infect Dis 71: 2669–2678, 2020. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa709. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Zheng D, Liwinski T, Elinav E. Interaction between microbiota and immunity in health and disease. Cell Res 30: 492–506, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41422-020-0332-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Donia MS, Cimermancic P, Schulze CJ, Wieland Brown LC, Martin J, Mitreva M, Clardy J, Linington RG, Fischbach MA. A systematic analysis of biosynthetic gene clusters in the human microbiome reveals a common family of antibiotics. Cell 158: 1402–1414, 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.08.032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Sugimoto Y, Camacho FR, Wang S, Chankhamjon P, Odabas A, Biswas A, Jeffrey PD, Donia MS. A metagenomic strategy for harnessing the chemical repertoire of the human microbiome. Science 366: eaax9176, 2019. doi: 10.1126/science.aax9176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Sender R, Fuchs S, Milo R. Revised estimates for the number of human and bacteria cells in the body. PLoS Biol 14: e1002533, 2016. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Gilbert JA, Blaser MJ, Caporaso JG, Jansson JK, Lynch SV, Knight R. Current understanding of the human microbiome. Nat Med 24: 392–400, 2018. doi: 10.1038/nm.4517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Medema MH, Kottmann R, Yilmaz P, Cummings M, Biggins JB, Blin K, et al. Minimum information about a biosynthetic gene cluster. Nat Chem Biol 11: 625–631, 2015. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.1890. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Pascal Andreu V, Roel-Touris J, Dodd D, Fischbach MA, Medema MH. The gutSMASH web server: automated identification of primary metabolic gene clusters from the gut microbiota. Nucleic Acids Res 49: W263–W270, 2021. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Funabashi M, Grove TL, Wang M, Varma Y, McFadden ME, Brown LC, Guo C, Higginbottom S, Almo SC, Fischbach MA. A metabolic pathway for bile acid dehydroxylation by the gut microbiome. Nature 582: 566–570, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2396-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Aleti G, Baker JL, Tang X, Alvarez R, Dinis M, Tran NC, Melnik AV, Zhong C, Ernst M, Dorrestein PC, Edlund A. Identification of the bacterial biosynthetic gene clusters of the oral microbiome illuminates the unexplored social language of bacteria during health and disease. mBio 10: e00321-19, 2019. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00321-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Chu J, Vila-Farres X, Brady SF. Bioactive synthetic-bioinformatic natural product cyclic peptides inspired by nonribosomal peptide synthetase gene clusters from the human microbiome. J Am Chem Soc 141: 15737–15741, 2019. doi: 10.1021/jacs.9b07317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Cohen LJ, Han S, Huang YH, Brady SF. Identification of the colicin V bacteriocin gene cluster by functional screening of a human microbiome metagenomic library. ACS Infect Dis 4: 27–32, 2018. doi: 10.1021/acsinfecdis.7b00081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Guo CJ, Chang FY, Wyche TP, Backus KM, Acker TM, Funabashi M, Taketani M, Donia MS, Nayfach S, Pollard KS, Craik CS, Cravatt BF, Clardy J, Voigt CA, Fischbach MA. Discovery of reactive microbiota-derived metabolites that inhibit host proteases. Cell 168: 517–526.e18, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.12.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.The Human Microbiome Project Consortium. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature 486: 207–214, 2012. doi: 10.1038/nature11234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Deleu S, Machiels K, Raes J, Verbeke K, Vermeire S. Short chain fatty acids and its producing organisms: an overlooked therapy for IBD? EBioMedicine 66: 103293, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Poll BG, Cheema MU, Pluznick JL. Gut microbial metabolites and blood pressure regulation: focus on SCFAs and TMAO. Physiology (Bethesda) 35: 275–284, 2020. doi: 10.1152/physiol.00004.2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Ramírez-Pérez O, Cruz-Ramón V, Chinchilla-López P, Méndez-Sánchez N. The role of the gut microbiota in bile acid metabolism. Ann Hepatol 16: S21–S26, 2017. doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0010.5494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Ridlon JM, Kang DJ, Hylemon PB, Bajaj JS. Bile acids and the gut microbiome. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 30: 332–338, 2014. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Porter NT, Martens EC. The critical roles of polysaccharides in gut microbial ecology and physiology. Annu Rev Microbiol 71: 349–369, 2017. doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-102215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Xu X, Xu P, Ma C, Tang J, Zhang X. Gut microbiota, host health, and polysaccharides. Biotechnol Adv 31: 318–337, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.12.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Gao K, Mu CL, Farzi A, Zhu WY. Tryptophan metabolism: a link between the gut microbiota and brain. Adv Nutr 11: 709–723, 2020. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmz127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Jin UH, Lee SO, Sridharan G, Lee K, Davidson LA, Jayaraman A, Chapkin RS, Alaniz R, Safe S. Microbiome-derived tryptophan metabolites and their aryl hydrocarbon receptor-dependent agonist and antagonist activities. Mol Pharmacol 85: 777–788, 2014. doi: 10.1124/mol.113.091165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Krautkramer KA, Fan J, Bäckhed F. Gut microbial metabolites as multi-kingdom intermediates. Nat Rev Microbiol 19: 77–94, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41579-020-0438-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Chu J, Vila-Farres X, Inoyama D, Gallardo-Macias R, Jaskowski M, Satish S, Freundlich JS, Brady SF. Human microbiome inspired antibiotics with improved β-lactam synergy against MDR Staphylococcus aureus. ACS Infect Dis 4: 33–38, 2018. doi: 10.1021/acsinfecdis.7b00056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Chu J, Vila-Farres X, Inoyama D, Ternei M, Cohen LJ, Gordon EA, Reddy BVB, Charlop-Powers Z, Zebroski HA, Gallardo-Macias R, Jaskowski M, Satish S, Park S, Perlin DS, Freundlich JS, Brady SF. Discovery of MRSA active antibiotics using primary sequence from the human microbiome. Nat Chem Biol 12: 1004–1006, 2016. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.2207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Cohen LJ, Kang HS, Chu J, Huang YH, Gordon EA, Reddy BVB, Ternei MA, Craig JW, Brady SF. Functional metagenomic discovery of bacterial effectors in the human microbiome and isolation of commendamide, a GPCR G2A/132 agonist. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112: E4825–E4834, 2015. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1508737112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Walsh CJ, Guinane CM, Hill C, Ross RP, O’Toole PW, Cotter PD. In silico identification of bacteriocin gene clusters in the gastrointestinal tract, based on the Human Microbiome Project’s reference genome database. BMC Microbiol 15: 183, 2015. doi: 10.1186/s12866-015-0515-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Bushin LB, Covington BC, Rued BE, Federle MJ, Seyedsayamdost MR. Discovery and biosynthesis of streptosactin, a sactipeptide with an alternative topology encoded by commensal bacteria in the human microbiome. J Am Chem Soc 142: 16265–16275, 2020. doi: 10.1021/jacs.0c05546. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Heilbronner S, Krismer B, Brötz-Oesterhelt H, Peschel A. The microbiome-shaping roles of bacteriocins. Nat Rev Microbiol 19: 726–739, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41579-021-00569-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Hetrick KJ, van der Donk WA. Ribosomally synthesized and post-translationally modified peptide natural product discovery in the genomic era. Curr Opin Chem Biol 38: 36–44, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2017.02.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Hug JJ, Krug D, Müller R. Bacteria as genetically programmable producers of bioactive natural products. Nat Rev Chem 4: 172–193, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41570-020-0176-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Torres Salazar BO, Heilbronner S, Peschel A, Krismer B. Secondary metabolites governing microbiome interaction of staphylococcal pathogens and commensals. Microb Physiol 31: 198–216, 2021. doi: 10.1159/000517082. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Arnison PG, Bibb MJ, Bierbaum G, Bowers AA, Bugni TS, Bulaj G, et al. Ribosomally synthesized and post-translationally modified peptide natural products: overview and recommendations for a universal nomenclature. Nat Prod Rep 30: 108–160, 2013. doi: 10.1039/c2np20085f. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Ortega MA, van der Donk WA. New Insights into the biosynthetic logic of ribosomally synthesized and post-translationally modified peptide natural products. Cell Chem Biol 23: 31–44, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2015.11.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Kim SG, Becattini S, Moody TU, Shliaha PV, Littmann ER, Seok R, Gjonbalaj M, Eaton V, Fontana E, Amoretti L, Wright R, Caballero S, Wang Z-MX, Jung H-J, Morjaria SM, Leiner IM, Qin W, Ramos RJJF, Cross JR, Narushima S, Honda K, Peled JU, Hendrickson RC, Taur Y, van den Brink MRM, Pamer EG. Microbiota-derived lantibiotic restores resistance against vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus. Nature 572: 665–669, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1501-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Balty C, Guillot A, Fradale L, Brewee C, Boulay M, Kubiak X, Benjdia A, Berteau O. Ruminococcin C, an anti-clostridial sactipeptide produced by a prominent member of the human microbiota Ruminococcus gnavus. J Biol Chem 294: 14512–14525, 2019. doi: 10.1074/jbc.RA119.009416. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Baquero F, Lanza VF, Baquero MR, del Campo R, Bravo-Vázquez DA. Microcins in Enterobacteriaceae: peptide antimicrobials in the eco-active intestinal chemosphere. Front Microbiol 10: 2261, 2019. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Chikindas ML, Novák J, Driessen AJ, Konings WN, Schilling KM, Caufield PW. Mutacin II, a bactericidal antibiotic from Streptococcus mutans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 39: 2656–2660, 1995. doi: 10.1128/AAC.39.12.2656. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Kers JA, Sharp RE, Defusco AW, Park JH, Xu J, Pulse ME, Weiss WJ, Handfield M. Mutacin 1140 lantibiotic variants are efficacious against Clostridium difficile infection. Front Microbiol 9: 415, 2018. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Hatziioanou D, Gherghisan-Filip C, Saalbach G, Horn N, Wegmann U, Duncan SH, Flint HJ, Mayer MJ, Narbad A. Discovery of a novel lantibiotic nisin O from Blautia obeum A2-162, isolated from the human gastrointestinal tract. Microbiology (Reading) 163: 1292–1305, 2017. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.000515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Chen Y, Wang J, Li G, Yang Y, Ding W. Current advancements in sactipeptide natural products. Front Chem 9: 595991, 2021. doi: 10.3389/fchem.2021.595991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Claesen J, Spagnolo JB, Ramos SF, Kurita KL, Byrd AL, Aksenov AA, Melnik AV, Wong WR, Wang S, Hernandez RD, Donia MS, Dorrestein PC, Kong HH, Segre JA, Linington RG, Fischbach MA, Lemon KP. A Cutibacterium acnes antibiotic modulates human skin microbiota composition in hair follicles. Sci Transl Med 12: eaay5445, 2020. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay5445. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Garcia-Gutierrez E, Mayer MJ, Cotter PD, Narbad A. Gut microbiota as a source of novel antimicrobials. Gut Microbes 10: 1–21, 2019. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2018.1455790. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Morin N, Lanneluc I, Connil N, Cottenceau M, Pons AM, Sablé S. Mechanism of bactericidal activity of microcin L in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55: 997–1007, 2011. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01217-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Gonzalez DJ, Lee SW, Hensler ME, Markley AL, Dahesh S, Mitchell DA, Bandeira N, Nizet V, Dixon JE, Dorrestein PC. Clostridiolysin S, a post-translationally modified biotoxin from Clostridium botulinum. J Biol Chem 285: 28220–28228, 2010. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.118554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Le Govic Y, Papon N, Le Gal S, Bouchara JP, Vandeputte P. Non-ribosomal peptide synthetase gene clusters in the human pathogenic fungus Scedosporium apiospermum. Front Microbiol 10: 2062, 2019. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02062. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Wang H, Fewer DP, Holm L, Rouhiainen L, Sivonen K. Atlas of nonribosomal peptide and polyketide biosynthetic pathways reveals common occurrence of nonmodular enzymes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111: 9259–9264, 2014. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1401734111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Schwarzer D, Finking R, Marahiel MA. Nonribosomal peptides: from genes to products. Nat Prod Rep 20: 275–287, 2003. doi: 10.1039/b111145k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.McErlean M, Overbay J, van Lanen S. Refining and expanding nonribosomal peptide synthetase function and mechanism. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 46: 493–513, 2019. doi: 10.1007/s10295-018-02130-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Fischbach MA, Walsh CT. Assembly-line enzymology for polyketide and nonribosomal peptide antibiotics: logic machinery, and mechanisms. Chem Rev 106: 3468–3496, 2006. doi: 10.1021/cr0503097. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Miller BR, Gulick AM. Structural biology of nonribosomal peptide synthetases. Methods Mol Biol 1401: 3–29, 2016. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-3375-4_1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Süssmuth RD, Mainz A. Nicht-ribosomale peptidsynthese - Prinzipien und Perspektiven. Angewandte Chemie 129: 3824–3878, 2017. doi: 10.1002/ange.201609079. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Zipperer A, Konnerth MC, Laux C, Berscheid A, Janek D, Weidenmaier C, Burian M, Schilling NA, Slavetinsky C, Marschal M, Willmann M, Kalbacher H, Schittek B, Brötz-Oesterhelt H, Grond S, Peschel A, Krismer B. Human commensals producing a novel antibiotic impair pathogen colonization. Nature 535: 511–516, 2016. doi: 10.1038/nature18634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Zimmermann M, Fischbach MA. A family of pyrazinone natural products from a conserved nonribosomal peptide synthetase in Staphylococcus aureus. Chem Biol 17: 925–930, 2010. doi: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2010.08.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Fang L, Guell M, Church GM, Pfeifer BA. Heterologous erythromycin production across strain and plasmid construction. Biotechnol Prog 34: 271–276, 2018. doi: 10.1002/btpr.2567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Sundaram S, Hertweck C. On-line enzymatic tailoring of polyketides and peptides in thiotemplate systems. Curr Opin Chem Biol 31: 82–94, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2016.01.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Wang J, Zhang R, Chen X, Sun X, Yan Y, Shen X, Yuan Q. Biosynthesis of aromatic polyketides in microorganisms using type II polyketide synthases. Microb Cell Fact 19: 1, 2020. doi: 10.1186/s12934-020-01367-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Wang J, Liang J, Chen L, Zhang W, Kong L, Peng C, Su C, Tang Y, Deng Z, Wang Z. Structural basis for the biosynthesis of lovastatin. Nat Commun 12: 867, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21174-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Klaus M, Grininger M. Engineering strategies for rational polyketide synthase design. Nat Prod Rep 35: 1070–1081, 2018. [Erratum in Nat Prod Rep 38:1409, 2021] doi: 10.1039/c8np00030a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Blin K, Shaw S, Kautsar SA, Medema MH, Weber T. The antiSMASH database version 3: increased taxonomic coverage and new query features for modular enzymes. Nucleic Acids Res 49: D639–D643, 2021. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa978. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Ntie-Kang F, Telukunta KK, Fobofou SAT, Chukwudi Osamor V, Egieyeh SA, Valli M, Djoumbou-Feunang Y, Sorokina M, Stork C, Mathai N, Zierep P, Chávez-Hernández AL, Duran-Frigola M, Babiaka SB, Tematio Fouedjou R, Eni DB, Akame S, Arreyetta-Bawak AB, Ebob OT, Metuge JA, Bekono BD, Isa MA, Onuku R, Shadrack DM, Musyoka TM, Patil VM, van der Hooft JJJ, da Silva Bolzani V, Medina-Franco JL, Kirchmair J, Weber T, Tastan Bishop Ö, Medema MH, Wessjohann LA, Ludwig-Müller J. Computational Applications in Secondary Metabolite Discovery (CAiSMD): an online workshop. J Cheminform 13: 64, 2021. doi: 10.1186/s13321-021-00546-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Liu L, Hao T, Xie Z, Horsman GP, Chen Y. Genome mining unveils widespread natural product biosynthetic capacity in human oral microbe Streptococcus mutans. Sci Rep 6: 37479, 2016. doi: 10.1038/srep37479. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Özçam M, Tocmo R, Oh JH, Afrazi A, Mezrich JD, Roos S, Claesen J, van Pijkeren JP. Gut symbionts Lactobacillus reuteri R2lc and 2010 encode a polyketide synthase cluster that activates the mammalian aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Appl Environ Microbiol 85: e01661–e01618 2019. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01661-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Zvanych R, Lukenda N, Li X, Kim JJ, Tharmarajah S, MaGarvey NA. Systems biosynthesis of secondary metabolic pathways within the oral human microbiome member Streptococcus mutans. Mol Biosyst 11: 97–104, 2015, doi: 10.1039/c4mb00406j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Lin XB, Lohans CT, Duar R, Zheng J, Vederas JC, Walter J, Gänzle M. Genetic determinants of reutericyclin biosynthesis in Lactobacillus reuteri. Appl Environ Microbiol 81: 2032–2041, 2015, doi: 10.1128/AEM.03691-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Tang X, Kudo Y, Baker JL, Labonte S, Jordan PA, McKinnie SMK, Guo J, Huan T, Moore BS, Edlund A. Cariogenic Streptococcus mutans produces tetramic acid strain-specific antibiotics that impair commensal colonization. ACS Infect Dis 6: 563–571, 2020. doi: 10.1021/acsinfecdis.9b00365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Wang M, Xie Z, Tang S, Chang EL, Tang Y, Guo Z, Cui Y, Wu B, Ye T, Chen Y. Reductase of mutanobactin synthetase triggers sequential C-C macrocyclization, C-S bond formation, and C-C bond cleavage. Org Lett 22: 960–964, 2020. doi: 10.1021/acs.orglett.9b04501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Joyner PM, Liu J, Zhang Z, Merritt J, Qi F, Cichewicz RH. Mutanobactin A from the human oral pathogen Streptococcus mutans is a cross-kingdom regulator of the yeast-mycelium transition. Org Biomol Chem 8: 5486–5489, 2010. doi: 10.1039/c0ob00579g. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Pultar F, Hansen ME, Wolfrum S, Böselt L, Fróis-Martins R, Bloch S, Kravina AG, Pehlivanoglu D, Schäffer C, LeibundGut-Landmann S, Riniker S, Carreira EM. Mutanobactin D from the human microbiome: total synthesis, configurational assignment, and biological evaluation. J Am Chem Soc 143: 10389–10402, 2021. doi: 10.1021/jacs.1c04825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Wang X, Du L, You J, King JB, Cichewicz RH. Fungal biofilm inhibitors from a human oral microbiome-derived bacterium. Org Biomol Chem 10: 2044–2050, 2012. doi: 10.1039/c2ob06856g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Wu C, Cichewicz R, Li Y, Liu J, Roe B, Ferretti J, Merritt J, Qi F. Genomic island TnSmu2 of Streptococcus mutans harbors a nonribosomal peptide synthetase-polyketide synthase gene cluster responsible for the biosynthesis of pigments involved in oxygen and H2O2 tolerance. Appl Environ Microbiol 76: 5815–5826, 2010. doi: 10.1128/AEM.03079-09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Li ZR, Sun J, Du Y, Pan A, Zeng L, Maboudian R, Burne RA, Qian PY, Zhang W. Mutanofactin promotes adhesion and biofilm formation of cariogenic Streptococcus mutans. Nat Chem Biol 17: 576–584, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41589-021-00745-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Balskus EP. Colibactin: understanding an elusive gut bacterial genotoxin. Nat Prod Rep 32: 1534–1540, 2015. doi: 10.1039/c5np00091b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Faïs T, Delmas J, Barnich N, Bonnet R, Dalmasso G. Colibactin: more than a new bacterial toxin. Toxins (Basel) 10: 151, 2018. doi: 10.3390/toxins10040151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Wernke KM, Xue M, Tirla A, Kim CS, Crawford JM, Herzon SB. Structure and bioactivity of colibactin. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 30: 127280, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2020.127280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Wilson MR, Jiang Y, Villalta PW, Stornetta A, Boudreau PD, Carrá A, Brennan CA, Chun E, Ngo L, Samson LD, Engelward BP, Garrett WS, Balbo S, Balskus EP. The human gut bacterial genotoxin colibactin alkylates DNA. Science 363: eaar7785, 2019. doi: 10.1126/science.aar7785. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Xue M, Kim CS, Healy AR, Wernke KM, Wang Z, Frischling MC, Shine EE, Wang W, Herzon SB, Crawford JM. Structure elucidation of colibactin and its DNA cross-links. Science 365: eaax2685, 2019. doi: 10.1126/science.aax2685. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Helfrich EJN, Lin GM, Voigt CA, Clardy J. Bacterial terpene biosynthesis: challenges and opportunities for pathway engineering. Beilstein J Org Chem 15: 2889–2906, 2019. doi: 10.3762/bjoc.15.283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Yamada Y, Kuzuyama T, Komatsu M, Shin-Ya K, Omura S, Cane DE, Ikeda H. Terpene synthases are widely distributed in bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112: 857–862, 2015. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1422108112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Dickschat JS. Bacterial terpene cyclases. Nat Prod Rep 33: 87–110, 2016. doi: 10.1039/c5np00102a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Gershenzon J, Dudareva N. The function of terpene natural products in the natural world. Nat Chem Biol 3: 408–414, 2007. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.2007.5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Zhou F, Pichersky E. More is better: the diversity of terpene metabolism in plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol 55: 1–10, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2020.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Karunanithi PS, Zerbe P. Terpene synthases as metabolic gatekeepers in the evolution of plant terpenoid chemical diversity. Front Plant Sci 10: 1166, 2019. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.01166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Oldfield E, Lin FY. Terpene biosynthesis: modularity rules. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 51: 1124–1137, 2012. doi: 10.1002/anie.201103110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.García CJ, Beltrán D, Tomás-Barberán FA. Human gut microbiota metabolism of dietary sesquiterpene lactones: untargeted metabolomics study of lactucopicrin and lactucin conversion in vitro and in vivo. Mol Nutr Food Res 64: e2000619, 2020. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.202000619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Guzior DV, Quinn RA. Review: microbial transformations of human bile acids. Microbiome 9: 140, 2021. doi: 10.1186/s40168-021-01101-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Heinken A, Ravcheev DA, Baldini F, Heirendt L, Fleming RMT, Thiele I. Systematic assessment of secondary bile acid metabolism in gut microbes reveals distinct metabolic capabilities in inflammatory bowel disease. Microbiome 7: 75, 2019. doi: 10.1186/s40168-019-0689-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.Xue L, Chen YY, Yan Z, Lu W, Wan D, Zhu H. Staphyloxanthin: a potential target for antivirulence therapy. Infect Drug Resist 12: 2151–2160, 2019. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S193649. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Silva LN, da Hora GCA, Soares TA, Bojer MS, Ingmer H, Macedo AJ, Trentin DS. Myricetin protects Galleria mellonella against Staphylococcus aureus infection and inhibits multiple virulence factors. Sci Rep 7: 2823, 2017. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-02712-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Egan K, Ross RP, Hill C. Bacteriocins: antibiotics in the age of the microbiome. Emerg Top Life Sci 1: 55–63, 2017. doi: 10.1042/ETLS20160015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111.Kim S, Covington A, Pamer EG. The intestinal microbiota: antibiotics, colonization resistance, and enteric pathogens. Immunol Rev 279: 90–105, 2017. doi: 10.1111/imr.12563. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112.Zheng J, Gänzle MG, Lin XB, Ruan L, Sun M. Diversity and dynamics of bacteriocins from human microbiome. Environ Microbiol 17: 2133–2143, 2015. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.12662. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113.Audirac-Chalifour A, Torres-Poveda K, Bahena-Román M, Téllez-Sosa J, Martínez-Barnetche J, Cortina-Ceballos B, López-Estrada G, Delgado-Romero K, Burguete-García AI, Cantú D, García-Carrancá A, Madrid-Marina VMM. Cervical microbiome and cytokine profile at various stages of cervical cancer: a pilot study. PLoS One 11: e0153274, 2016. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114.Riquelme E, Zhang Y, Zhang L, Montiel M, Zoltan M, Dong W, Quesada P, Sahin I, Chandra V, San Lucas A, Scheet P, Xu H, Hanash SM, Feng L, Burks JK, Do K-A, Peterson CB, Nejman D, Tzeng C-WD, Kim MP, Sears CL, Ajami N, Petrosino J, Wood LD, Maitra A, Straussman R, Katz M, White JR, Jenq R, Wargo J, McAllister F. Tumor microbiome diversity and composition influence pancreatic cancer outcomes. Cell 178: 795–806.e12, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.07.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115.Wu N, Yang X, Zhang R, Li J, Xiao X, Hu Y, Chen Y, Yang F, Lu N, Wang Z, Luan C, Liu Y, Wang B, Xiang C, Wang Y, Zhao F, Gao GF, Wang S, Li L, Zhang H, Zhu B. Dysbiosis signature of fecal microbiota in colorectal cancer patients. Microb Ecol 66: 462–470, 2013. doi: 10.1007/s00248-013-0245-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116.Schmidt BL, Kuczynski J, Bhattacharya A, Huey B, Corby PM, Queiroz EL, Nightingale K, Kerr AR, DeLacure MD, Veeramachaneni R, Olshen AB, Albertson DG. Changes in abundance of oral microbiota associated with oral cancer. PLoS One 9: e98741, 2014. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098741. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117.Aviles-Jimenez F, Vazquez-Jimenez F, Medrano-Guzman R, Mantilla A, Torres J. Stomach microbiota composition varies between patients with non-atrophic gastritis and patients with intestinal type of gastric cancer. Sci Rep 4: 4202, 2014. doi: 10.1038/srep04202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118.Cullin N, Azevedo Antunes C, Straussman R, Stein-Thoeringer CK, Elinav E. Microbiome and cancer. Cancer Cell 39: 1317–1341, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2021.08.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119.Grivennikov SI, Wang K, Mucida D, Stewart CA, Schnabl B, Jauch D, Taniguchi K, Yu G-Y, Osterreicher CH, Hung KE, Datz C, Feng Y, Fearon ER, Oukka M, Tessarollo L, Coppola V, Yarovinsky F, Cheroutre H, Eckmann L, Trinchieri G, Karin M. Adenoma-linked barrier defects and microbial products drive IL-23/IL-17-mediated tumour growth. Nature 491: 254–258, 2012. doi: 10.1038/nature11465. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120.Routy B, Gopalakrishnan V, Daillère R, Zitvogel L, Wargo JA, Kroemer G. The gut microbiota influences anticancer immunosurveillance and general health. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 15: 382–396, 2018. doi: 10.1038/s41571-018-0006-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121.Zitvogel L, Daillère R, Roberti MP, Routy B, Kroemer G. Anticancer effects of the microbiome and its products. Nat Rev Microbiol 15: 465–478, 2017. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122.Louis P, Hold GL, Flint HJ. The gut microbiota, bacterial metabolites and colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Microbiol 12: 661–672, 2014. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123.Nakkarach A, Foo HL, Song AAL, Mutalib NEA, Nitisinprasert S, Withayagiat U. Anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory effects elicited by short chain fatty acids produced by Escherichia coli isolated from healthy human gut microbiota. Microb Cell Fact 20: 36, 2021. doi: 10.1186/s12934-020-01477-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124.He Y, Fu L, Li Y, Wang W, Gong M, Zhang J, Dong X, Huang J, Wang Q, Mackay CR, Fu YX, Chen Y, Guo X. Gut microbial metabolites facilitate anticancer therapy efficacy by modulating cytotoxic CD8+ T cell immunity. Cell Metab 33: 988–1000.e7, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2021.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125.Chen J, Hu S, Ji D, Gao Z, Wang H, Yang Y, Chen Y, Gu J. Hemolysin BL from novel Bacillus toyonensis BV-17 induces antitumor activity both in vitro and in vivo. Gut Microbes 1: 15, 2020.doi: 10.1080/19490976.2020.1782158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126.Sittipo P, Lobionda S, Choi K, Sari IN, Kwon HY, Lee YK. Toll-like receptor 2-mediated suppression of colorectal cancer pathogenesis by polysaccharide A from Bacteroides fragilis. Front Microbiol 9: 1588, 2018.doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127.Konishi H, Fujiya M, Tanaka H, Ueno N, Moriichi K, Sasajima J, Ikuta K, Akutsu H, Tanabe H, Kohgo Y. Probiotic-derived ferrichrome inhibits colon cancer progression via JNK-mediated apoptosis. Nat Commun 7: 12365, 2016. doi: 10.1038/ncomms12365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128.Zvanych R, Lukenda N, Kim JJ, Li X, Petrof EO, Khan WI, Magarvey NA. Small molecule immunomodulins from cultures of the human microbiome member Lactobacillus plantarum. J Antibiot (Tokyo) 67: 85–88, 2014. doi: 10.1038/ja.2013.126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129.Le B, Yang SH. Efficacy of Lactobacillus plantarum in prevention of inflammatory bowel disease. Toxicol Rep 5: 314–317, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2018.02.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130.Delgado S, Sánchez B, Margolles A, Ruas-Madiedo P, Ruiz L. Molecules produced by probiotics and intestinal microorganisms with immunomodulatory activity. Nutrients 12: 391, 2020. doi: 10.3390/nu12020391. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131.Cyprian F, Sohail MU, Abdelhafez I, Salman S, Attique Z, Kamareddine L, Al-Asmakh M. SARS-CoV-2 and immune-microbiome interactions: lessons from respiratory viral infections. Int J Infect Dis 105: 540–550, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.02.071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132.Harata G, He F, Hiruta N, Kawase M, Kubota A, Hiramatsu M, Yausi H. Intranasal administration of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG protects mice from H1N1 influenza virus infection by regulating respiratory immune responses. Lett Appl Microbiol 50: 597–602, 2010. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2010.02844.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133.Zabihollahi R, Motevaseli E, Sadat SM, Azizi-Saraji AR, Asaadi-Dalaie S, Modarressi MH. Inhibition of HIV and HSV infection by vaginal lactobacilli in vitro and in vivo. Daru 20: 53, 2012. doi: 10.1186/2008-2231-20-53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134.Domínguez-Díaz C, García-Orozco A, Riera-Leal A, Padilla-Arellano JR, Fafutis-Morris M. Microbiota and its role on viral evasion: is it with us or against us? Front Cell Infect Microbiol 9: 256, 2019. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2019.00256. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135.Stefan KL, Kim MV, Iwasaki A, Kasper DL. Commensal microbiota modulation of natural resistance to virus infection. Cell 183: 1312–1324.e10, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136.Karst SM. The influence of commensal bacteria on infection with enteric viruses. Nat Rev Microbiol 14: 197–204, 2016. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2015.25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137.Martinez JP, Sasse F, Brönstrup M, Diez J, Meyerhans A. Antiviral drug discovery: broad-spectrum drugs from nature. Nat Prod Rep 32: 29–48, 2015. doi: 10.1039/c4np00085d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138.Yi M, Lin S, Zhang B, Jin H, Ding L. Antiviral potential of natural products from marine microbes. Eur J Med Chem 207: 112790, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2020.112790. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139.He F, Zhang T, Xue K, Fang Z, Jiang G, Huang S, Li K, Gu Z, Shi H, Zhang Z, Zhu H, Lin L, Li J, Xiao F, Shan H, Yan R, Li X, Yan Z. Fecal multi-omics analysis reveals diverse molecular alterations of gut ecosystem in COVID-19 patients. Anal Chim Acta 1180: 338881, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2021.338881. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140.Dhar D, Mohanty A. Gut microbiota and Covid-19- possible link and implications. Virus Res 285: 198018, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2020.198018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141.Liu J, Liu S, Zhang Z, Lee X, Wu W, Huang Z, Lei Z, Xu W, Chen D, Wu X, Guo Y, Peng L, Lin B, Chong Y, Mou X, Shi M, Lan P, Chen T, Zhao W, Gao Z. Association between the nasopharyngeal microbiome and metabolome in patients with COVID-19. Synth Syst Biotechnol 6: 135–143, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.synbio.2021.06.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142.Yamamoto S, Saito M, Tamura A, Prawisuda D, Mizutani T, Yotsuyanagi H. The human microbiome and COVID-19: a systematic review. PLoS One 16: e0253293, 2021. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143.Winkler ES, Shrihari S, Hykes BL Jr, Handley SA, Andhey PS, Huang YJS, Swain A, Droit L, Chebrolu KK, Mack M, Vanlandingham DL, Thackray LB, Cella M, Colonna M, Artyomov MN, Stappenbeck TS, Diamond MS. The intestinal microbiome restricts alphavirus infection and dissemination through a bile acid-type I IFN signaling axis. Cell 182: 901–918.e18, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144.Steed AL, Christophi GP, Kaiko GE, Sun L, Goodwin VM, Jain U, Esaulova E, Artyomov MN, Morales DJ, Holtzman MJ, Boon ACM, Lenschow DJ, Stappenbeck TS. The microbial metabolite desaminotyrosine protects from influenza through type I interferon. Science 357: 498–502, 2017. doi: 10.1126/science.aam5336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 145.Alwin A, Karst SM. The influence of microbiota-derived metabolites on viral infections. Curr Opin Virol 49: 151–156, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.coviro.2021.05.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146.Atanasov AG, Zotchev SB, Dirsch VM; International Natural Product Sciences Taskforce, Supuran CT. Natural products in drug discovery: advances and opportunities. Nat Rev Drug Discov 20: 200–216, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41573-020-00114-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147.Henke MT, Kenny DJ, Cassilly CD, Vlamakis H, Xavier RJ, Clardy J. Ruminococcus gnavus, a member of the human gut microbiome associated with Crohn’s disease, produces an inflammatory polysaccharide. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116: 12672–12677, 2019. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1904099116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148.MacAlpine J, Daniel-Ivad M, Liu Z, Yano J, Revie NM, Todd RT, Stogios PJ, Sanchez H, O’Meara TR, Tompkins TA, Savchenko A, Selmecki A, Veri AO, Andes DR, Fidel PL Jr, Robbins N, Nodwell J, Whitesell L, Cowen LE. A small molecule produced by Lactobacillus species blocks Candida albicans filamentation by inhibiting a DYRK1-family kinase. Nat Commun 12: 6151, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-26390-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149.Daliri EBM, Wei S, Oh DH, Lee BH. The human microbiome and metabolomics: current concepts and applications. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 57: 3565–3576, 2017. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2016.1220913. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150.Franzosa EA, Sirota-Madi A, Avila-Pacheco J, Fornelos N, Haiser HJ, Reinker S, Vatanen T, Hall AB, Mallick H, McIver LJ, Sauk JS, Wilson RG, Stevens BW, Scott JM, Pierce K, Deik AA, Bullock K, Imhann F, Porter JA, Zhernakova A, Fu J, Weersma RK, Wijmenga C, Clish CB, Vlamakis H, Huttenhower C, Xavier RJ. Gut microbiome structure and metabolic activity in inflammatory bowel disease. Nat Microbiol 4: 293–305, 2019. [Erratum in Nat Microbiol 4: 898, 2019]. doi: 10.1038/s41564-018-0306-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 151.Feng YL, Cao G, Chen DQ, Vaziri ND, Chen L, Zhang J, Wang M, Guo Y, Zhao YY. Microbiome–metabolomics reveals gut microbiota associated with glycine-conjugated metabolites and polyamine metabolism in chronic kidney disease. Cell Mol Life Sci 76: 4961–4978, 2019. doi: 10.1007/s00018-019-03155-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152.Chen MX, Wang SY, Kuo CH, Tsai IL. Metabolome analysis for investigating host-gut microbiota interactions. J Formos Med Assoc 118: S10–S22, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2018.09.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153.Shaffer M, Armstrong AJS, Phelan VV, Reisdorph N, Lozupone CA. Microbiome and metabolome data integration provides insight into health and disease. Transl Res 189: 51–64, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2017.07.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154.Kenshole E, Herisse M, Michael M, Pidot SJ. Natural product discovery through microbial genome mining. Curr Opin Chem Biol 60: 47–54, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2020.07.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155.Bauman KD, Butler KS, Moore BS, Chekan JR. Genome mining methods to discover bioactive natural products. Nat Prod Rep 38: 2100–2129, 2021. doi: 10.1039/D1NP00032B. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 156.Adu-Oppong B, Gasparrini AJ, Dantas G. Genomic and functional techniques to mine the microbiome for novel antimicrobials and antimicrobial resistance genes. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1388: 42–58, 2017. doi: 10.1111/nyas.13257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157.Clarke G, Stilling RM, Kennedy PJ, Stanton C, Cryan JF, Dinan TG. Minireview: gut microbiota: the neglected endocrine organ. Mol Endocrinol 28: 1221–1238, 2014. doi: 10.1210/me.2014-1108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 158.Meisner A, Wepner B, Kostic T, van Overbeek LS, Bunthof CJ, de Souza RSC, Olivares M, Sanz Y, Lange L, Fischer D, Sessitsch A, Smidt H; MicrobiomeSupport Consortium. Calling for a systems approach in microbiome research and innovation. Curr Opin Biotechnol 73: 171–178, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2021.08.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 159.Khoruts A. Targeting the microbiome: from probiotics to fecal microbiota transplantation. Genome Med 10: 80, 2018. doi: 10.1186/s13073-018-0592-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 160.Garber K. First microbiome-based drug clears phase III, in clinical trial turnaround. Nat Rev Drug Discov 19: 655–656, 2020. doi: 10.1038/d41573-020-00163-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 161.Bindels LB, Delzenne NM, Cani PD, Walter J. Opinion: towards a more comprehensive concept for prebiotics. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 12: 303–310, 2015. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2015.47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162.Borody TJ, Peattie D, Campbell J. Therapeutic potential of the human gastrointestinal microbiome. Drug Dev Res 74: 385–392, 2013. doi: 10.1002/ddr.21093. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 163.Cully M. Microbiome therapeutics go small molecule. Nat Rev Drug Discov 18: 569–572, 2019. doi: 10.1038/d41573-019-00122-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 164.Roberts AB, Gu X, Buffa JA, Hurd AG, Wang Z, Zhu W, Gupta N, Skye SM, Cody DB, Levison BS, Barrington WT, Russell MW, Reed JM, Duzan A, Lang JM, Fu X, Li L, Myers AJ, Rachakonda S, DiDonato JA, Brown JM, Gogonea V, Lusis AJ, Garcia-Garcia JC, Hazen SL. Development of a gut microbe–targeted nonlethal therapeutic to inhibit thrombosis potential. Nat Med 24: 1407–1417, 2018. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0128-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 165.Santilli AD, Dawson EM, Whitehead KJ, Whitehead DC. Nonmicrobicidal small molecule inhibition of polysaccharide metabolism in human gut microbes: a potential therapeutic avenue. ACS Chem Biol 13: 1165–1172, 2018. doi: 10.1021/acschembio.8b00309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 166.Valencia PM, Richard M, Brock J, Boglioli E. The human microbiome: opportunity or hype? Nat Rev Drug Discov 16: 823–824, 2017. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2017.154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 167.Chen RY, Mostafa I, Hibberd MC, Das S, Mahfuz M, Naila NN, Islam MM, Huq S, Alam MA, Zaman MU, Raman AS, Webber D, Zhou C, Sundaresan V, Ahsan K, Meier MF, Barratt MJ, Ahmed T, Gordon JI. A microbiota-directed food intervention for undernourished children. N Engl JMed 384: 1517–1528, 2021. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa2023294. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 168.Cordaillat-Simmons M, Rouanet A, Pot B. Live biotherapeutic products: the importance of a defined regulatory framework. Exp Mol Med 52: 1397–1406, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s12276-020-0437-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 169.Schupack DA, Mars RAT, Voelker DH, Abeykoon JP, Kashyap PC. The promise of the gut microbiome as part of individualized treatment strategies. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 9: 7–25, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41575-021-00499-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 170.Wong AC, Levy M. New approaches to microbiome-based therapies. mSystems 4: e00122-19, 2019. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00122-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 171.Ghimire S, Roy C, Wongkuna S, Antony L, Maji A, Keena MC, Foley A, Scaria J. Identification of Clostridioides difficile-inhibiting gut commensals using culturomics, phenotyping, and combinatorial community assembly. MSystems 5: e00620-19, 2020. doi: 10.1128/msystems.00620-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
