Table 4.
Data summary table of the relationship between patients’ and donors’ microbiota post-FMT
| Reference | Donor Relationship (after FMT) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Responders | Non-responders | |
| Paramsothy et al (2019)33 | ↑ homogeneity in taxonomic profiles to a level seen in donors Donor batches with ↑ Bacteroides OTU187 (Bacteroides fragilis and Bacteroides finegoldii) |
Donor batches with ↑ Clostridium XIVA and association with Bacteroides uniformis, Bacteroides coprocola and Streptococcus OTU56 |
| Moayyedi et al (2015)8 | ↑ microbiota similarity to donor B (enrichment of Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcus) | ↓ microbiota similarity to donor B |
| Rossen et al (2015)10 | • Microbiota composition overlap with healthy donors (FMT-D) characterised by ↑ Clostridium clusters IV, XIVa, XVIII and ↓ Bacteroidetes • Microbiota composition shift away from non-responders (FMT-A (different direction to FMT-D responders)) characterised by ↑ Bacilli, Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes ↑ similarity index to corresponding donors ↑ similarity to donors which they received faeces from (P = 0.02) |
↓ similarity index to corresponding donors ↓ similarity to donors which they received faeces from (P = 0.02) |
| Haifer et al (2021)11 | Donor 1 (favourable donor) had a significantly higher bacterial diversity driven by higher species evenness with compositional differences largely related to differences in relative abundances of Bacteroidetes taxa | Not reported |
| Jacob et al (2017)24 | ↑ Similarity with donor FMT samples Donors achieving clinical remission clustered together |
Not reported |
| Chen et al (2020)27 | Abundance of F. prausnitzii ↑ towards levels similar to those of donors | Not reported |
| Li et al (2020)22 | ↓ Dissimilarity between patients and donors (α + β diversities analogous to donors) | ↓ Dissimilarity between patients and donors (α + β diversities analogous to donors) |
| Fuentes et al (2017)31 | ↑ Similarity to donors (FMT-D) (P = 0.02) Trend of ↑ similarity to donors (patients with sustained remission) (P = 0.1) No significant differences in similarity values of FMT-A patients |
↓ Similarity to donors (FMT-D) (P = 0.02) Trend of ↓ similarity to donors (relapsers) (P = 0.1) Donor batches associated with Proteobacteria (E. coli and Aeromonas) and ↑ abundance of Ruminococcus gnavus No significant differences in similarity values of FMT-A patients |
| Kump et al (2018)23 | All recipients’ microbiotas, regardless of response, shifted towards the respective donor microbiota | All recipients’ microbiotas, regardless of response, shifted towards the respective donor microbiota |
| Shabat et al (2021)19 | UCED preconditioning of donors led to reduction of alpha diversity of donor stool with numerically higher remission rates compared with FMT alone (or UCED and FMT). | |
| Okahara et al (2020)29 | ↑ Cumulative non-relapse rate in sibling FMT than parent-child FMT Donor Bacteroidetes species (Bacteroides uniformis and Parabacteroides distasonis and Bacteroides dorei) persisted in patients with no UC recurrence after 24 months ↑ Similarity of 10 Bacteroidetes species to donor levels |
↓ Cumulative non-relapse rate in ≥11-year difference group that 0-10-year difference group |
FMT-faecal microbiota transplantation, FMT-D-donor faecal microbiota transplantation, FMT-A-autologous faecal microbiota transplantation, UCED-Ulcerative colitis exclusion diet