Probiotics in Anticancer Immunity E-Book
63,09 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Bentham Science Publishers
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Serie: Frontiers in Cancer Immunology
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2009
Probiotics have been suggested to be involved in both prevention and treatment of various human cancers. Probiotics in Anticancer Immunity explains biochemical mechanisms of anticancer immunity exerted by probiotics in various human cancers. It presents edited chapters focused on the evidence of probiotic use against human cancers through several animal and human studies.
Part 1 of Probiotics in Anticancer Immunity consists of 11 chapters. The introductory chapters provide information about the link between gut microbiota and the host immune system in cancer and the general mechanisms of anticancer immunity exerted by probiotics. Subsequent chapters are focused on probiotics’ anticancer immunity in specific cancers such as, skin cancer, stomach cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, head and neck cancer, liver cancer, cervical and colon cancer.
Key features
- Gives a new dimensions and insight in the role of probiotics in anticancer immunity towards various human cancers
- Provides several color figures and tables to clearly explain relevant information.
- Includes recent information with new insights and references
- Meets the needs of basic (pre-clinical) and advanced clinical researchers and postgraduate scholars
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Seitenzahl: 567
Ähnliche
BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBLISHERS LTD.
End User License Agreement (for non-institutional, personal use)
This is an agreement between you and Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. Please read this License Agreement carefully before using the book/echapter/ejournal (“Work”). Your use of the Work constitutes your agreement to the terms and conditions set forth in this License Agreement. If you do not agree to these terms and conditions then you should not use the Work.
Bentham Science Publishers agrees to grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable limited license to use the Work subject to and in accordance with the following terms and conditions. This License Agreement is for non-library, personal use only. For a library / institutional / multi user license in respect of the Work, please contact: [email protected].
Usage Rules:
All rights reserved: The Work is the subject of copyright and Bentham Science Publishers either owns the Work (and the copyright in it) or is licensed to distribute the Work. You shall not copy, reproduce, modify, remove, delete, augment, add to, publish, transmit, sell, resell, create derivative works from, or in any way exploit the Work or make the Work available for others to do any of the same, in any form or by any means, in whole or in part, in each case without the prior written permission of Bentham Science Publishers, unless stated otherwise in this License Agreement.You may download a copy of the Work on one occasion to one personal computer (including tablet, laptop, desktop, or other such devices). You may make one back-up copy of the Work to avoid losing it.The unauthorised use or distribution of copyrighted or other proprietary content is illegal and could subject you to liability for substantial money damages. You will be liable for any damage resulting from your misuse of the Work or any violation of this License Agreement, including any infringement by you of copyrights or proprietary rights.Disclaimer:
Bentham Science Publishers does not guarantee that the information in the Work is error-free, or warrant that it will meet your requirements or that access to the Work will be uninterrupted or error-free. The Work is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either express or implied or statutory, including, without limitation, implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as to the results and performance of the Work is assumed by you. No responsibility is assumed by Bentham Science Publishers, its staff, editors and/or authors for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products instruction, advertisements or ideas contained in the Work.
Limitation of Liability:
In no event will Bentham Science Publishers, its staff, editors and/or authors, be liable for any damages, including, without limitation, special, incidental and/or consequential damages and/or damages for lost data and/or profits arising out of (whether directly or indirectly) the use or inability to use the Work. The entire liability of Bentham Science Publishers shall be limited to the amount actually paid by you for the Work.
General:
Any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with this License Agreement or the Work (including non-contractual disputes or claims) will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Singapore. Each party agrees that the courts of the state of Singapore shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with this License Agreement or the Work (including non-contractual disputes or claims).Your rights under this License Agreement will automatically terminate without notice and without the need for a court order if at any point you breach any terms of this License Agreement. In no event will any delay or failure by Bentham Science Publishers in enforcing your compliance with this License Agreement constitute a waiver of any of its rights.You acknowledge that you have read this License Agreement, and agree to be bound by its terms and conditions. To the extent that any other terms and conditions presented on any website of Bentham Science Publishers conflict with, or are inconsistent with, the terms and conditions set out in this License Agreement, you acknowledge that the terms and conditions set out in this License Agreement shall prevail.Bentham Science Publishers Pte. Ltd. 80 Robinson Road #02-00 Singapore 068898 Singapore Email: [email protected]
FOREWORD
Nowadays, the probiotics field (a scientist that investigates; industry, production process; regulators, and protection to consumers, and consumers) is an interesting topic in the nutritional field that is constantly being discussed (medical, immunological) related to human health. Who thought that 100 years ago, when Russian immunologist Melnikoff noted that Bulgarian farmers are healthier and live longer? This Nobel Prize winner supposed that this is because the fermented milk they use contains live bacteria, which gave rise to the modern concept of probiotics, “live microorganisms which, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host.
As a researcher in the probiotic field, it is always good to reinforce the knowledge and see how much we know about probiotics, and how they could help us in the prevention of children’s diarrhoea, cases of allergy, or a coadjutant treatment in immunological disorders or even cancer.
Today I have the honour to introduce the volume 3 of book titled “Frontiers in Cancer Immunology [Probiotics in Anticancer Immunity]”, which include a total of 11 chapters with 283 pages and edited by Dr. Mitesh Kumar Dwivedi, Dr. Alwarappan Sankaranarayanan, and Dr. Sanjay Tiwari.
The book is focused on the mechanical characteristics that probiotics generate in several human cancers, with evidence-based medicine based on human studies and its effects along with the comprehension of key molecules of cancer progression using animal studies. In my personal experience, knowing how probiotics work, we obtained a better general vision of their effects in different conditions. An expert team of researchers worked on the compilation of the book with a special final chapter related to “Future Challenges in Probiotics Based Anticancer Immunotherapy”, which mention the need for more human clinical trials with a higher number of subjects that allow us to understand the correct dose/benefit of the use of probiotics as a coadjutant therapy.
I think that the present book will have an impact on the probiotics field because the topic is related to our clinical research; now, we will be investigating how microbes are present on the surface of different mucosa and how they could affect the progression of the disease or the treatment.
Hopefully, more investigation in the probiotic field will be made in the next years to understand the true mechanism of action of the probiotics in different human conditions.
All the best with the present book.
PREFACE
The book 'Frontiers in Cancer Immunology (volume 3) Probiotics in Anticancer Immunity' is focused on the role of probiotics in exerting the anticancer immunity. With the diverse role of probiotics in benefitting the human health, their role in prevention and management of various human cancers cannot be denied. The book is focused on delivering the evidence of the use of probiotics in human cancers through several animal and human studies, in addition to highlighting their mechanistic role.
The book ‘Probiotics in Anticancer Immunity’ consists of total 11 chapters. The initial two chapters provide the basic background of the interaction of gut microbiota and host immune system in cancer and the different mechanisms by which probiotics can induce/exert the anticancer immunity.
The subsequent chapters deal with the specific cancer conditions such as cancer of skin, colon, colorectal, breast, stomach, liver, cervical, lung, and head & neck, and mechanistic role of probiotics in inducing the anticancer immunity. Moreover, the role of gut microbiota in the dysbiosis and management and/or prevention of these cancers is also put forward.
We, the editorial team, strongly believe that the contents of the individual chapters will provide recent and updated information as well as new insights into the role of probiotics in anticancer immunity. As such, the book will be useful in education and as a scientific tool for academics, clinicians, scientists, researchers, and health professionals in various disciplines including microbiology, medical microbiology, immunology, biotechnology, and medicine.
As the editors, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to all authors for their excellent contributions. We are also indebted to the publishers for their efforts to publish the book in a timely fashion.
List of Contributors
Gut Microbiota and Host Immune System in Cancer
Shakti Prasad Pattanayak1,*,Gaurav Ranjan1,Priyashree Sunita2,Pritha Bose3Abstract
The mammalian gut is inhabited by more than 100 billion symbiotic microorganisms. The microbial colony residing in the host is recognised as microbiota. One of the critical functions of microbiota is to prevent the intestine against exogenous and harmful pathogen colonization mediated by various mechanistic pathways involving direct competition for limited nutrients and regulation of host immunity. Cancer accounts for one of the leading causes of mortality arising from multifactorial abnormalities. The interconnection of microbiota with various pathological conditions including cancer is recently being researched extensively for analysing tumor induction, progression, inhibition and diagnosis. The diversified microbial colony inhabiting the human gut possesses a vast and distinct metabolic repertoire complementary to the mammalian enzyme activity in the liver as well as gut mucosa which facilitates processes essential for host digestion. Gut microbiota is often considered the critical contributor to defining the biochemical profile of diet thus impacting the health and disease of the hosts. This chapter mainly focuses on understanding the complex microbial interaction with cancer either negatively or positively which may help to conceive novel precautionary and therapeutic strategies to fight cancer.
1. INTRODUCTION
The gut microbiota of humans is recognized as a complex and dynamic heterogonous ecosystem which is comprised of diverse microbial communities such as bacteria, archaea, viruses, fungi, etc. interacting with each other and also with the host. All the genes of microorganisms taken together build a genetic repertoire representing an order of higher magnitude than that of humans. Being the most extensive micro-ecosystem existing in human body, it is considered an essential organ. Its symbiotic nature with host’s body allows it to play a major role in regulating the various physiological processes. Gut microbiota is mainly categorized in four major sections namely Firmicutes, Proteus, Bacteroides and actinomycetes. The complex and cross-linked adaptive and innate immune system play a pivotal role in maintaining the homeostasis of host defence system against harmful pathogens. With the rapid advancement in molecular biology, bioinformatics, genomics, analysis technology etc. gut microbiota research has made immense progress. Such research has pointed out that compromised gut microbiota and their metabolites often contribute to pathological developments such as neurodegenerative problems, metabolic and gastrointestinal disorder and even cardiovascular diseases. Current evidence also reflects the involvement of microbiota in carcinogenesis and may improve the activity and efficacy of anticancer therapies or might also increase their toxicities in contrast. In this chapter we have summarized the relevance of gut microbial alteration with various cancers and also discussed the association of probable metabolic mechanisms of microbes and their derivatives with the development of cancer and also their facets of anti-tumorigenic properties. Thus, the present chapter reflects the link of gut microbiota with the host immune system and its role in the modulation of carcinogenesis.
2. Human Health and Disease: Role of Gut Microbiota
More than 1000 million symbiotic microorganisms live inside human beings and exert a significant role in human health and disease. The gut microbiome has been considered a “fundamental organ” [1], containing about 150 times more genes than that of expressed in the entire human genome sequence [2]. Recent advancement in research has revealed that the microbiome is implicated in basic biological activities of human being, influencing innate immunity, regulating development of epithelium and modulation of metabolic phenotype [3-6]. Seve- ral chronic ailments like IBD, ulcerative colitis, obesity, metabolic disorder, atherosclerosis, ALD, NAFLD, liver cirrhosis, as well as hepatocellular cancer have been related through the human microbiome [7, 8]. In current decades, a remarkable extent of evidence has intensely recommended an important function of the gut microbiome in health and disease of humans being [9-23] via nume- rous mechanisms of actions. Significantly, gut microbiota has the ability to upsurge extraction of energy from nutrient, enhance nutrient production and modify signalling of appetite [9, 10]. Gut microbiota has additional multipurpose metabolic genes as compared to the genome of humans, and delivers individuals with specific and distinctive enzymes and several biological and chemical pathways [9]. Firstly, an immense quantity of the metabolic gut microbiota use that are advantageous towards the host are concerned in both acquirement of dietary or xenobiotic dispensation, comprising with the metabolic process of undigested biological compound and the vitamins production [10]. Secondly, the gut microbiota of human also delivers a bodily blockade, defending its host against external infectious agents through production of antimicrobial agents as well as competitive rejection [11-13]. In conclusion, gut microbiota shows a very important function in the expansion of the abdominal mucosa as well as immunity of the host [14-16].
2.1. The Human Microbiome in Health
The human microbiome has a significant impact on host physiology. Bacteria, viruses and trillions of other microorganisms colonize the body of human being, and the gut microbiota are directly associated with host physiology. While more than 1000 known bacterial species dwell in the body, innumerable other microbial genes have been identified in the human genome [2]. After birth, the mutualistic bacteria start colonizing in the host and subsequently evolve into a diversified ecosystem as the host body grows and develops [24]. Symbiotic bacteria assist in metabolism of indigestible food, supplement with requisite nutrients, extend protection against other pathogenic colonization and also play pivotal role in forming intestinal architecture [25]. Thus host-bacteria interrelation has evolved to be beneficial. The intestinal microbiota is involved in maintaining energy homeostasis and often facilitates the digestion of indigestible dietary fibres present in vegetables. While specific Bacteroides species help in digestion of xyloglucans present in vegetables, beneficial microorganisms like Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium utilize fructo-oligosaccharides and oligosaccharides which are difficult for digestion by host [26, 27]. Moreover, earlier reports indicate that gut microbiota essentially participate in maintaining lipid and protein homeostasis and are involved in synthesis of microbial nutrients like vitamins [28]. Each day, 50 to 100 mmol/L of SCFAs produced by gut microbiota, including acetic acid, butyric and propionic acids, supply energy to the host intestine [29]. These easily absorbable SCFAs in the colon perform diversified roles and regulate motility of gut, inflammatory response, and metabolism of glucose and energy management [30, 31]. Additionally, the gut microbiota is also associated with the supply of essential vitamins to the host, like riboflavin, folates, cobalamine, biotin, etc. Gut-bacteria also regulate the gut immune system (humoral as well as cellular) [32]. The microbial metabolites, once recognized by hematopoietic and/or non-hematopoietic cells, trigger innate immunity that translates into physiological responses [33]. Tolerogenic response generated by gut colonizing bacteria restricts Th17 induced anti-inflammatory pathway in dendritic cells of gut [34].
Fig. (1))The gut-immune axis. The GI lumen embodies the interface between the Gut Microbiota and the immune system. Intestinal cells consist of microvilli and embrace Goblet cells, Paneth cells, enterocytes, enteroendocrine cells and stem cells. IELs may exist within the epithelial cells. Goblet cells secrete mucin protein which enhances the intraluminal mucus layer. Paneth cells secrete AMPs. GM and GM-derived molecules form PAMPs, which are recognized by PRRs expressed on immune cells and gut epithelial cells. IgA molecules are secreted in the lumen, and they help to bind microbes and microbial-derived molecules. Immune cells are crucial in the initiation of immune-tolerance versus commensals and immune-reactivity against pathogens. Both innate immunity and adaptive immunity are involved in it. The immune cells are comprised of DCs, CD8+ CTLs, MDSCs, IgA-producing plasma cells, and CD4+ T-cells. The latter can be distinguished into different phenotypes which are involved in immune reactivity or tolerance (i.e., Th1, Th2, Th17 and Tregs). [Abbreviations: CD, cluster of differentiation; CTL, cytotoxic T lymphocytes; PRR, pattern recognition receptors; MDSC, myeloid-derived suppressor cells; IEL, Intraepithelial lymphocytes; AMPs, Antimicrobial peptides; GI, gastro-intestinal; GM, gut microbiota; PAMPs, pathogen-associated molecular patterns; DCs, dendritic cells]3. THE ROLE OF THE HUMAN MICROBIOME IN CANCER INDUCTION
3.1. Human Microbiome and Gastrointestinal Malignancy
Globally, gastrointestinal cancer is one of the main causes of death. In addition to the well-known genetic factors, non-genetic factors often accentuate the risk of GIT cancer which the residential GIT microorganisms contribute majorly (Fig. 1). Progress in research related to microbial-induced GIT malignancies, like gastric, colorectal and esophageal cancer, has revealed novel roles of human gut microbiota in tumor development (Table 1).
3.1.1. Gastric Cancer
Chronic inflammation induced by H. pylori is considered one of the distinctive causes of gastric cancer and is classified by World Health Organization (WHO) as a class I carcinogen. Almost 6,60,000 new gastric cancer cases reported each year are related to H. pylori infection that causes degeneration of parietal cells instigating gastric tissue deterioration, metaplasia and dysplasia, which lead to carcinogenesis [42]. Studies reported that H. pylori elimination prior to the initiation of degenerative gastritis limits the risk of gastric cancer [43]. However, the predisposition to gastric tumorigenesis is often dependent on various factors such as genetic variation in the H. pylori strain, diversities in retaliation of the host, and also on the distinct interactions between host and microbe [44]. The risk of gastric cancer development is often found to be essentially related to the phylogenetic origin of H. pylori [45]. Among the various H. pylori determinants, the two which primarily aggravated the carcinogenic risks are CagA (cytotoxin-associated antigen-A) and VacA (vacuolating cytotoxin) [46]. In response to specific H. pylori infection in the host, VacA stimulates gastric cell apoptosis and induces mitochondrial dysfunction leading to carcinogenesis [47]. Moreover, host immunity is also documented to be suppressed by VacA via dendritic cells’ expression and release of anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-10/ IL-8). Such a disrupted host immune system facilitates the evasion of H. pylori and potentiates tumor survival [48]. In contrast to VaCA, the risk of developing gastric adenocarcinoma is exponentiated by PAI (cag pathogenicity island) existing in certain H. pylori strains [49]. The cag PAI houses specific genes encoding the proteins that are responsible for forming bacterial secretion system- type IV (T4SS). CagA and other peptidoglycans exported into the host system from H. pylorivia activation of PI3K signalling nexus, stimulate cell migration and contribute to tumorigenesis [50]. Moreover, phosphorylated CagA, through interaction and activation of different cellular proteins within the host, alters morphological characteristics such as cell scattering along with elongation [51]. Lertpiriyapong et al. [52] also documented that insulin-gastrin mice develop worse gastric pathology due to the synergetic establishment of ASF (Altered Schaedler’s flora) that caused inflammation of gastric corpus, hyperplasia and dysplasia of gastric epithelial cells.
3.2. Colorectal Cancer
Recent research also focuses on deciphering the interlink between colonizing gut microbes and colon cancer incidence. Microbial dysbiosis often contributes to the complex etiology of adenomas and colorectal cancer. The adenomas exhibit a pathological lack of diversity and imbalance in the microbial community [53, 54]. Various studies revealed that both adenomas and colorectal cancer result due to a lack of “good” bacteria colonization, such as butyrate-producing bacteria, and infestation of of high proportion of pathogenic bacterial strains like Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, Helicobacter, etc [53]. The gut microbiota from neoplasmic-generating mice has been shown to stimulate tumor formation and inflammation in selected animals, thus explicitly contributing to colorectal cancer [54]. The relationship between the gut microbiome and colorectal cancer progression is studied via mechanistic insight. Though, this fact remains still uncertain from clinical trials whether any alteration or change in the gut microbiota is a reason or repercussion of colorectal cancer or adenomas. Furthermore, the role of certain bacterial agents in cancer risk has yet to be clearly elucidated. Fusobacterium nucleatum, one of the periodontal infectious agents, was proposed to be excessive in the course of the progression of infection from adenomas to cancer [55]. A noteworthy upsurge in many bacteria, including Bacteroides species like Bacteroides ovatus, Bacteroides fragilis, Bacteroides vulgatus, Bacteroides massiliensis and Escherichia coli, has been witnessed from high-grade adenoma to carcinoma [56]. The progression of infection or inflammation, as well as the growth of tumors, are the most likely mechanisms that cause this growth [57, 58]. Fragilysin, a toxin produced by the Entero-toxigenic bacterium Bacteroides fragilis, stimulates the NF-κB pathway as well as the Wnt signalling pathway. This can escalate the proliferation of cells and the generation of several inflammatory mediators like TNF-α, IL-8, GRO-alpha, IL-1β, and IL-5 [59-61]. The protagonist by Enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis (ETBF) in CRC was additionally exemplified in the study of Wu et al. [62]. The study revealed that ETBF colonized mice showed a noticeable proliferation in colon carcinomas and tumorigenesis as compared to normal control. Moreover, Enterococcus faecalis and Escherichia coli may possibly cause DNA impairment by stimulating the discharge of O2- in host cells extracellularly and encrypting the enzymatic mechanism of action that produces a genotoxic metabolite called colibactin by means of complex enzymes, namely polyketide synthases (PKSs) [63, 64]. Though these reports illustrate a causative involvement by gut microbiota in the colorectal neoplastic process, further detailed studies are required to conclude their effectiveness as colorectal carcinoma biomarkers, and also their efficacy as theranostic targets. Furthermore, many metabolites isolated from bacteria have been associated with the subdual of CRC progression, which includes short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) that are formed via microbial enzymatic decomposition of complex carbohydrates, including a salt of acetic acid, salt of propionate and salt of butyrate, which acts as source of energy for colonic columnar epithelium. Ester of butyric acid, which is predominantly produced by several species within the obligate anaerobic bacterium family, mainly Oscillospiraceae and Lachnospiraceae, has shown its potential to be defensive against colonic neoplastic process. A fibre-rich diet has apparently shown a decrease in the possibility of causing colon maliciousness due to the secretion of ester of butyric acid [65, 66]. In vitro cancer cell line study revealed that ester of butyric acid has the potential to suppress tumorigenesis by inducing apoptosis, hindering proliferation, causing epigenetic variations in transcription, modifying inflammatory mediators and production of cytokines [67]. Therefore, modification of the intestinal microbiome via nutritional regulation as well as microbicidal therapy can propose an abundant theranostic prospective. The synthesis of SCFAs occurs due to manipulation of intestinal microbiota and can be attained with the use of non-nutritious food or prebiotic ingredients and might be a promising method to sequence host metabolic rate, which ultimately influences risk against cancer.
3.3. Oesophageal Cancer
Current research revealed that gastro-oesophageal reflux causes oesophageal chronic inflammation and is very closely associated with esophageal adeno-carcinoma. The complete pathophysiology of the progression method could be referred to as “gastro-esophageal reflux disease-Barrett’s esophagus esophageal adeno-carcinoma” (GERD–BE–EA) [68-70]. Local alterations in its occurrence seem to be interrelated with fiscal expansion. As a result, scientists have recommended that the disease from esophageal adenocarcinoma can be associated with the practice of microbicidal globally. Continuing alterations in the esophageal microenvironment after repeated microbicidal experiences may cause a greater incidence of gastro-esophageal reflux disease, consequently leading to an upsurging disease from esophageal adenocarcinoma [71]. A number of detailed researches have described noticeable esophageal micro-environmental changes in subjects with gastro-esophageal-reflux disease [72]. However, the regional microbiome does not differentiate between adenocarcinoma and epidermoid carcinoma [73]. Furthermore, the action of Helicobacter pylori in the pathophysiology of GERD and esophageal adenocarcinoma still remains indistinct and contentious. H. pylori bacterium was primarily recognized by the World health Organization as a cancer-causing agent related to adenocarcinoma of the stomach before the 2000s. Moreover, scientists have discovered that, with the drop in H. pylori infection, gastro-esophageal reflux disease frequency has augmented [74]. A sequence of case-referent studies also recommended that H. pylori may cause the development of gastro-esophageal reflux disease and associated esophageal adenocarcinoma. Nevertheless, the elimination of H. pylori therapy may not exacerbate gastro-esophageal reflux disease or surge new GERD [75].
4. FUNCTION OF GUT MICROBIOTA IN HOST PHYSIOLOGY AND METABOLISM OF NUTRIENTS
The fact that the gut microbiota plays such an important role in the host's metabolic process and health, has prompted research into the microbial population and their activity in related metabolic processes, especially those involving nutritional component metabolism. For survival, most intestinal bacteria depend on undigested dietary in the upper digestive tract. While useful metabolites are generally produced by Saccharolytic bacteria, in case of limited carbohydrate sources, the bacteria rely on alternative sources for energy leading to detrimental metabolite production for the host body [76], thereby affecting the health also. The SCFAs are the key substances produced by bacteria through the fermentation of dietary carbohydrates. Among them, acetate, propionate, and butyrate are the three most abundantly found SCFAs in faeces (ratio ranging from 3:1:1 to 10:2:1) [77]. These major SCFAs regulate diversified and critical roles in human physiology. Butyrate is mostly recognized as the essential SCFA for human well-being, as it produces a key energy source necessary for host colonocytes and also possesses anticarcinogenic properties. Butyrate also exerts an apoptotic effect on colon cancer cells and also leads to histone deacetylase inhibition, thereby regulating the gene regulation [78]. Evidence also supports the ability of butyrate to activate the intestinal gluconeogenesis (IGN) mediated by the CAMP-dependent pathway, which facilitates glucose along with energy homeostasis [79]. Propionate, on the other hand, also acts as a source of energy for epithelial cells, and when transferred to the liver, it participates in hepatic gluconeogenesis. Its role in satiety signalling is also becoming increasingly prominent because of its interaction with gut receptors like GPR41 (G-protein coupled receptor) and GPR43 (also recognised as FFAR2 (fatty acid receptors FFAR2/3) which consequently may lead to IGN activation [79-81]. The IGN-mediated formation of glucose from propionate directly stimulates energy homeostasis via reduction of hepatic glucose production, subsequently reducing obesity [79]. Acetate is not only the furthermost abundantly found SCFAs but it is also an important metabolite or cofactor that promotes the growth of bacteria such as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii [82]. In humans, acetate is found to accentuate cholesterol metabolism as well as lipogenesis whereas; studies in rodents indicate its pivotal role in regulating appetite [83]. Lactate, fumarate, succinate and other fermentation products synthesized intermediately by bacteria are usually detectable in faeces of healthy individual in lower levels due to their maximum utilization by other bacteria. For example, other bacteria have been observed to convert lactate into propionate or butyrate, which results in trace amount of lactate in adult faeces. However, a significant rise in lactate levels is often detected in patients suffering from ulcerative colitis which in turn serve as a disease indicator also [84]. Moreover, the effect of interactions between different bacteria on final detection of SCFA has also been discussed in different co-culture cross feeding studies. Bifidobacterium longum grown on fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS) produced lactate; however, the lactate completely disappeared when co-cultured with Eubacterium hallii. Moreover, significant high levels of butyrate replaced the lactate, though Eubacterium hallii solely failed to grow on carbohydrate-rich substrate [85]. On the other hand, acetate is known to stimulate growth of Roseburia intestinalis, and when it was co-cultured with B. longum, a delay in the growth of R. intestinalis was observed on fructo-oligosaccharides till enough acetate was formed in the growth medium by B. longum [86].
SCFA production specificity by intestinal bacterial species: While most bacteria are reported to produce acetate, only a few bacterial species produce butyrate and propionate [87, 88]. Firmicutes are major butyrate producers in gastrointestinal environment and include Lachnospiraceae and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, and Negativicutes.Certain Clostridium species are predominant producers of propionate. Also, different organisms possessing butyrate synthesis pathways have also been identified by metagenomic studies [89]. Since bacterial phylogeny does not define SCFA production, different approaches targeting typical genes are necessary for enumerating bacteria with specific metabolic processes. Two major butyrate production routes and three propionate synthesis pathways have been identified by Louis and co-workers in a colonic microbial colony [90]. The primers intended against the critical metabolic genes involved in these signalling pathways may assist in revealing bacterial functional groups in different cohorts. This technique may also be more beneficial than the recently studied 16S rRNA gene sequencing, which indicates bacterial composition but provides no information about fluctuations in metabolic activities.
5. ISOLATION OF INTESTINAL MICROBES IN DIETARY METABOLIZATION
Various studies, including those reporting gut microbiota-mediated daidzein (soy isoflavone) metabolism to equol, indicate the specific role of certain gut microorganisms in metabolizing dietary components. Matthies et al. [91] reported the isolation of a new microbial strain from an equol-producing participant by serially diluting faecal homogenate and successively incubating in daidzein and tetracycline-containing broth which potentially prevented the growth of different faecal microorganisms without affecting the daidzein metabolism. A novel species was thus identified after characterizing the pure culture both phenotypically and phylogenetically and was named Slackia isoflavoniconvertans. Environmental microbiology includes methods like enrichment techniques for the isolation of organisms mediating contaminants and xenobiotic degradation in the environment. Usually, suspension batch or continuous batch culture enrichment techniques are employed in which mixed microbial culture is subjected to incubation with xenobiotics, behaving as a selection factor and a sole source of carbon [92]. Although these methods promote organism’s isolation or sometimes consortia which facilitate dietary substance metabolism, such techniques have not been extensively employed in the field of gut microbiota of human. In one study [93], carbon sources like xylan and pectin or cellulose-containing nutrient medium were inoculated with faeces from cattle for 8-weeks in continuous culture fermenters under conditions mimicking the environment of cattle colon and caecum. Subsequently, serial dilutions of samples were followed with carbohydrate-specific agar plating for isolation of colonies which were successively identified with the help of 16S rRNA gene sequencing. This enrichment procedure led to the growth of communities that represented a wide microbial spectrum demonstrating six main phyla, namely Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Fusobacteria, Synergistetes, Firmicutes and Proteobacteria. Among the isolated strains, Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes were associated with species known for possessing enzymes required for the fermentation of components of plant cell walls. However, they did not identically match sequences of cultured bacteria in the ribosomal database project, signifying a new genera or species. Thus, this technique may propel newer opportunities for characterizing metabolic capabilities of different members belonging to gut microbiota. Even though the isolation methods of strain with the potential to metabolize dietary compounds reflect potential microbes complicated in in vivo processes, they have a few drawbacks. Particularly, such techniques only focus on the bacteria that have been cultured in in vitro [94]. Currently, microbiota research focuses on sequencing techniques for describing either the composition or probable abundance of the microbial colony. However, the evaluation of specific functions performed by the diversified microorganism still remains to be widely explored, which will be beneficial for the elucidation of mechanisms linking gut microbiota and metabolism [95].
5.1. Omics Approaches
The incorporation of top-down methods for researching the functionality and composition of microbiota, known as 'omics' approaches, is being extensively explored. While, metagenomics gives the perception of the genes which might be articulated, meta-transcriptomics exposes evidences regarding regulatory systems as well as the expression of gene. Metabolomics, on the other hand, notifies the functionality of the microbiome and consequently gives a lot of information on the intestinal microbial community. Because each 'omic' technology enables a distinct perspective on the microbiota and its effect on the host, numerous 'omic' techniques can be used concurrently and the results are merged, usually from the same samples, to completely harness their potential. This enables to understand the impact of the microbial community on the entire biological process at the molecular scale with the use of computer modelling [96].
5.2. Metagenomics
Metagenomics has been widely utilised to look at variations in microbiota composition in illness states like diabetes, obesity and inflammatory bowel disease related to healthy people; however, it has also found new modifications in microbiome activity in specific disorders [97]. In contrast to control participants, the faecal microbiome of 20-patients using hepatitis-B cirrhosis of the liver showed elevation of branched-chain AA (amino-acids), glutathione, nitrogen, gluconeogenesis and lipids, as well as a reduction in AAA and bile acid linked metabolism, according to Wei et al [98]. The functional genes of intestinal microbiota are progressively being studied using metagenomic analysis. This methodology was used by Jones et al. to investigate the location of BSH genes [99]. They discovered the functioning BSH in each of the major bacterial groups and Archaea within the gut using metagenomic analysis, demonstrating that bioidentical synthetic hormone is a persistent response to the quantity of combined bile-acids inside the intestine with a greater level of duplication. The technique employed in a recent study by Mohammed & Guda is particularly related to the current review [100]. The approach was subsequently used to examine the effect of microbe-derived enzymes responsible for metabolism and anticipate enzymes transcribed by human gut microbiome using the gut metagenomic data. They found 48 pathways with at least one enzyme encoded by bacteria. Vitamins, amino acids, lipids and co-factors were all metabolised by these pathways. The approaches were then used to show variations in the profile of gut microbiota-derived enzymes in obese and lean participants, as well as in IBD patients. Polygalactouronase, which is produced by Prevotella and Bacteroides species, was found to be abundant in obese persons’ gut microbiota. However, in obese versus thin people, the urease-encoding bacteria were identified in lower numbers.
5.3. Meta Transcriptomics
Meta transcriptomics is the process of extracting and sequencing mRNAs from the microbial environment in order to determine which genes are articulated in those ecosystems. It generally begins with reverse transcription to create c-DNA, which is subsequently sequenced by using metagenomics-related methods. Meta transcriptomics enables the discovery of new non-coding RNAs that are hypothesised to be involved in biochemical functions, including quorum detection as well as stress outcomes [101, 102]. In a clinical meta-transcriptomic investigation of faecal microbiota [103], the microbial c-DNAs of every sample were decoded using 454 methodologies. Moreover, evaluation of the 16S ribosomal RNA transcription demonstrated that Bacteroidetes, as well as Firmicutes, caused most of the transcription (31 and 49%), with fewer amounts from Actinobacteria (0.4%), Lentisphaerae (0.2%) and Proteobacteria (3.7%). Meta transcriptomics, like all 'omics' techniques, has limits, and investigations are technically and bioinformatically demanding. Because of the small half-life of mRNA, detecting short-term reactions to changes in the environment is challenging [104].
5.4. Meta-proteomic
Meta-proteomic tries to define the entire profile of translation of gene outcomes and can provide extra information regarding posttranslational alterations and localization than meta-transcriptomics data [105]. One benefit of meta-proteomic is the ability to relate proteins to particular taxonomic groupings, giving insight into microbiota at the species and subspecies levels complicated in certain catalytic activities and signalling pathways, for example, phenotype-genotype correlations [106]. Meta-proteomic approaches are still in progress; however, they typically entail heat treatment of a faeces sample and intensive beads battering to extract as well as deform the peptides, which are then enzymatically degraded to peptides. The most common method of peptide testing is nano-2D-LC-MS-MS, with COG designations obtained using BLAST against the NCBI COG dataset for every peptide sequence. The functions of microbial communities are studied by categorising proteins into Children’s Oncology Group groups. The meta-proteomic investigations on the intestine microbes have been conducted in a limited number of participants (typically n=1 to 3), limiting the inferences which can be taken; however, the outcomes have exposed consistency. Verberkmoes et al. performed a faecal meta-proteomic investigation on a group of mature female twins of monozygotic [107]. The proteins found by selected databases were categorised into COG categories after being analysed using nano-2D-LC- MS-MS. Nucleotide metabolism, amino acid metabolism, energy production, glucose metabolism, protein folding and translation were the COG activities with the highest frequency in both patients. The authors have compared the meta-proteomic profiles to a previously released meta-genomic status of two participants, which disclosed, in comparison to, the greatest plentiful roles recognised in the meta-proteome. The metagenome has been controlled via proteins related to the metabolism of inorganic ion, cellular biogenesis, cell proliferation, and bioactive compound bio-synthesis. Meta-proteomic was also used on faecal samples from an obese and lean person, as well as assessments of CDP (Crohn's Disease Patients) and normal participants by Xiong et al. [105]. Young et al. employed acoustic proteomics to investigate modifications in the faecal bacteria of a premature new-born (72 to 21 days of delivery) [106]. According to the findings, the growing bacterial population emphasizes its energies on cellular division, creation of protein, and metabolism of lipids before shifting to more complicated metabolic roles like metabolism of glucose and protein secretion and proteins trafficking. It is worth noting that the operational distribution observed after three weeks, matched that of the adolescent human intestine [107].
5.5. Metabolic Summarizing (metabolomics/ Metabonomics)
The metabolic profile has been developed by means of a potent systems biology tool for obtaining the metabolic activity or phenotype by simultaneously detecting the low-molecular-weight molecules within the biological fluid. These metabolic profiles inside the host consist of thousands of biological macromolecules derived endogenous and external metabolic signalling pathways, ecological stimuli, and host-environment metabolic collaborations. Dietary ingredients and by-products of gut microbes’ activity might be considered environmental factors. The capacity to quantify metabolites in host specimens that are directly derived from the microbiota, such as SCFAs, is a significant advantage of employing metabonomic to examine the intestinal flora. This shows the detail of gut microbes action and changes because of food. Moreover, after absorption from intestine, bacterial substances can infiltrate the metabolic systems of host, causing down-stream metabolic disruptions and the formation of microbial host co-metabolites, which can then be detected by metabolic sequencing.
6. THE CROSSTALK BETWEEN IMMUNE SYSTEM AND MICRO- BIOTA
Because the microbiota flora is formed during the prenatal stage together with immunological formation, and the gut, as that of the major immunological organ, seems to be the main microbiota host, it is apparent that the microbiome could play a role in immune system response regulation [108]. Research on germ-free (GF) mice revealed that a loss of microbiome is associated with a significant impairment in the intestine's lymphoid tissue development and immunological activities [109]. At different levels, the gut microbiome has a wide range of impacts on adaptive and innate immune systems. Similarly, these microorganisms have the ability to influence both systemic and local immune responses in their hosts [110-113]. Several body cells, especially immune cells, carry pattern recognition receptors as pathogenic component detectors. TLRs are mostly expressed on macrophages and B-cell among PRRs. Microbes interact with this category of receptor to induce local immunogenicity [114, 115]. Furthermore, interactions with pattern recognition receptors trigger local dendritic cells by microorganisms or their metabolites and by-products [111-116]. The locally activated dendritic cells (DCs) can subsequently move to regional lymph nodes, causing novice T-cells to differentiate into Th17 as well as regulatory T-cells (Tregs) [117]. A subset of such effector T-cells returns to their initial place and governs local immune function once more. However, a subpopulation of T-cells relocates to the circulatory system, where they generate systemic immunity. Th17 cells, by secreting cytokines like IL-17 or stimulating neutrophils, can cause inflammatory immune reactions [118]. In contrast, Tregs, which are considered important gatekeepers in immunological regulation, orchestrate inflammation reduction to inhibit unwanted immune reactions via engaging dendritic cells and secreting TGF-β and IL-10 [119]. The Th17 cells are typically found in the small intestine’s basal lamina. During intriguing research, GF mice lacking Th17 cells were identified and colonised by the particular subgroup of bacteria known as segmental filamentous bacteria. Such commensal bacteria may cause Th17 cells to accumulate in the intestinal lumen. This intriguing link endorses the important function of commensal bacteria in Th17 cell stimulation and promotes human defence against microbial diseases [120]. During the 1st year of life, the microbial population in the new-born gut influences Treg population formation [121]. The number of Treg cells in the basal lamina was reduced considerably in antibiotic-treated or GF mice, implying that the microbiome plays a role in Treg development or maintenance. The colonisations of GF mice with numerous Clostridium strains are sufficient to generate Treg in the gastrointestinal system [122]. Transfection of Bacteroides fragilis, a common human intestinal bacterium, also resulted in the production of Tregs in mice [123]. B-lymphocytes, which are the key mediators of gastrointestinal mucosal homeostasis, by generating immunoglobulin-A (IgA), are also affected by the composition of human microbes. Several investigations have shown that the concentration of this secreted antibody is notably reduced in GF as well as new-born mice, but that this is reversible after the microbiota colonises the animals [124].
7. MECHANISM OF GUT MICROBIOTA IN ANTICANCER IMMUNITY
Several studies have highlighted the microbiota's dual function in maintaining the host's health. Commercial microorganisms can safeguard the host's homeostasis in a number of different ways, including by producing a variety of metabolites and by-products [125, 126]. The microbiome often helps in lowering cancer rates and inflammatory response. The host microbiome has a number of roles that can help to prevent tumour growth and progression.
7.1. Improvement of Antitumor Immunity
Microbiota may be able to reduce tumour cell power by modifying anti-tumor immunity. In the tumour microenvironment (TME), for example, beneficial microbiota activates the NK cell-DC axis by regulating monocytes [127, 128]. In comparison to control mice, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidobacterium lactis and Lactobacillus rhamnosus, fed mice showed improved immune systems as it increased the phagocytic activity of peritoneal macrophages as well as peripheral blood leucocytes. Furthermore, compared to untreated cells, spleen cells of mice nourished with these probiotics showed increased cytotoxic effects of NK cells. As a result, lactic acid bacteria alter both innate and acquired immune responses [129]. Mice colonised with 11 strains of bacteria taken from healthy human faeces and accomplished of IFN-γ producing CD8+ T-cells demonstrated significant resistance to tumour formation, according to the study. Human microbiota and their anti-tumor immunity effects were ascribed with this ability [130].
7.2. Inflammation Reduction
Inflammation is now widely recognised as a key factor in cancer development. Anti-inflammatory mechanisms in certain commensal microorganisms can help them modulate tumour formation. For example, E. coli, such as KUB-36, which has the ability to generate 7 SCFAs, triggered anti-inflammatory action resulting in slowed tumour growth. The inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8 and TNF-α were all suppressed by SCFAs as well as additional metabolites of E. coli like KUB-36 [131]. Faecalibacterium prausnitzii is yet another common bacterium that has anti-inflammatory properties. F. prausnitzii has been revealed to exert anti-inflammatory action in Caco2 colorectal cells by inhibiting NF-kB stimulation and IL-8 release. This microbiome's activation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells led to a rise in the IL-10/IL-12 ratio [132]. These findings support the argument that existing in gluten-free environs makes people more prone to infections and illness growth [133].
7.3. Systemic Genotoxicity Reduction
Gluten-free diet mice transfected with wild microbiota from related animals reported enhanced resistance to certain mutagen factors, as well as a higher chance of survival [113]. As observed in the oral injection of L. johnsonii into B-cell lymphoma-sensitive animals, the positive effect of certain bacteria against cancer could be due to a decrease in systemic genotoxicity [134]. Inflammatory mediators are the primary cause of systemic genotoxicity [135], and L. johnsonii
