Cargando…
Washed microbiota transplantation vs. manual fecal microbiota transplantation: clinical findings, animal studies and in vitro screening
Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) by manual preparation has been applied to treat diseases for thousands of years. However, this method still endures safety risks and challenges the psychological endurance and acceptance of doctors, patients and donors. Population evidence showed the washed mic...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Higher Education Press
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7093410/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31919742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13238-019-00684-8 |
_version_ | 1783510277836242944 |
---|---|
author | Zhang, Ting Lu, Gaochen Zhao, Zhe Liu, Yafei Shen, Quan Li, Pan Chen, Yaoyao Yin, Haoran Wang, Huiquan Marcella, Cicilia Cui, Bota Cheng, Lei Ji, Guozhong Zhang, Faming |
author_facet | Zhang, Ting Lu, Gaochen Zhao, Zhe Liu, Yafei Shen, Quan Li, Pan Chen, Yaoyao Yin, Haoran Wang, Huiquan Marcella, Cicilia Cui, Bota Cheng, Lei Ji, Guozhong Zhang, Faming |
author_sort | Zhang, Ting |
collection | PubMed |
description | Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) by manual preparation has been applied to treat diseases for thousands of years. However, this method still endures safety risks and challenges the psychological endurance and acceptance of doctors, patients and donors. Population evidence showed the washed microbiota preparation with microfiltration based on an automatic purification system followed by repeated centrifugation plus suspension for three times significantly reduced FMT-related adverse events. This washing preparation makes delivering a precise dose of the enriched microbiota feasible, instead of using the weight of stool. Intraperitoneal injection in mice with the fecal microbiota supernatant obtained after repeated centrifugation plus suspension for three times induced less toxic reaction than that by the first centrifugation following the microfiltration. The toxic reactions that include death, the change in the level of peripheral white blood cells, and the proliferation of germinal center in secondary lymphoid follicles in spleen were noted. The metagenomic next-generation sequencing (NGS) indicated the increasing types and amount of viruses could be washed out during the washing process. Metabolomics analysis indicated metabolites with pro-inflammatory effects in the fecal microbiota supernatant such as leukotriene B4, corticosterone, and prostaglandin G2 could be removed by repeated washing. Near-infrared absorption spectroscopy could be served as a rapid detection method to control the quality of the washing-process. In conclusion, this study for the first time provides evidence linking clinical findings and animal experiments to support that washed microbiota transplantation (WMT) is safer, more precise and more quality-controllable than the crude FMT by manual. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s13238-019-00684-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7093410 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Higher Education Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70934102020-03-26 Washed microbiota transplantation vs. manual fecal microbiota transplantation: clinical findings, animal studies and in vitro screening Zhang, Ting Lu, Gaochen Zhao, Zhe Liu, Yafei Shen, Quan Li, Pan Chen, Yaoyao Yin, Haoran Wang, Huiquan Marcella, Cicilia Cui, Bota Cheng, Lei Ji, Guozhong Zhang, Faming Protein Cell Research Article Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) by manual preparation has been applied to treat diseases for thousands of years. However, this method still endures safety risks and challenges the psychological endurance and acceptance of doctors, patients and donors. Population evidence showed the washed microbiota preparation with microfiltration based on an automatic purification system followed by repeated centrifugation plus suspension for three times significantly reduced FMT-related adverse events. This washing preparation makes delivering a precise dose of the enriched microbiota feasible, instead of using the weight of stool. Intraperitoneal injection in mice with the fecal microbiota supernatant obtained after repeated centrifugation plus suspension for three times induced less toxic reaction than that by the first centrifugation following the microfiltration. The toxic reactions that include death, the change in the level of peripheral white blood cells, and the proliferation of germinal center in secondary lymphoid follicles in spleen were noted. The metagenomic next-generation sequencing (NGS) indicated the increasing types and amount of viruses could be washed out during the washing process. Metabolomics analysis indicated metabolites with pro-inflammatory effects in the fecal microbiota supernatant such as leukotriene B4, corticosterone, and prostaglandin G2 could be removed by repeated washing. Near-infrared absorption spectroscopy could be served as a rapid detection method to control the quality of the washing-process. In conclusion, this study for the first time provides evidence linking clinical findings and animal experiments to support that washed microbiota transplantation (WMT) is safer, more precise and more quality-controllable than the crude FMT by manual. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s13238-019-00684-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Higher Education Press 2020-01-09 2020-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7093410/ /pubmed/31919742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13238-019-00684-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Zhang, Ting Lu, Gaochen Zhao, Zhe Liu, Yafei Shen, Quan Li, Pan Chen, Yaoyao Yin, Haoran Wang, Huiquan Marcella, Cicilia Cui, Bota Cheng, Lei Ji, Guozhong Zhang, Faming Washed microbiota transplantation vs. manual fecal microbiota transplantation: clinical findings, animal studies and in vitro screening |
title | Washed microbiota transplantation vs. manual fecal microbiota transplantation: clinical findings, animal studies and in vitro screening |
title_full | Washed microbiota transplantation vs. manual fecal microbiota transplantation: clinical findings, animal studies and in vitro screening |
title_fullStr | Washed microbiota transplantation vs. manual fecal microbiota transplantation: clinical findings, animal studies and in vitro screening |
title_full_unstemmed | Washed microbiota transplantation vs. manual fecal microbiota transplantation: clinical findings, animal studies and in vitro screening |
title_short | Washed microbiota transplantation vs. manual fecal microbiota transplantation: clinical findings, animal studies and in vitro screening |
title_sort | washed microbiota transplantation vs. manual fecal microbiota transplantation: clinical findings, animal studies and in vitro screening |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7093410/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31919742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13238-019-00684-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhangting washedmicrobiotatransplantationvsmanualfecalmicrobiotatransplantationclinicalfindingsanimalstudiesandinvitroscreening AT lugaochen washedmicrobiotatransplantationvsmanualfecalmicrobiotatransplantationclinicalfindingsanimalstudiesandinvitroscreening AT zhaozhe washedmicrobiotatransplantationvsmanualfecalmicrobiotatransplantationclinicalfindingsanimalstudiesandinvitroscreening AT liuyafei washedmicrobiotatransplantationvsmanualfecalmicrobiotatransplantationclinicalfindingsanimalstudiesandinvitroscreening AT shenquan washedmicrobiotatransplantationvsmanualfecalmicrobiotatransplantationclinicalfindingsanimalstudiesandinvitroscreening AT lipan washedmicrobiotatransplantationvsmanualfecalmicrobiotatransplantationclinicalfindingsanimalstudiesandinvitroscreening AT chenyaoyao washedmicrobiotatransplantationvsmanualfecalmicrobiotatransplantationclinicalfindingsanimalstudiesandinvitroscreening AT yinhaoran washedmicrobiotatransplantationvsmanualfecalmicrobiotatransplantationclinicalfindingsanimalstudiesandinvitroscreening AT wanghuiquan washedmicrobiotatransplantationvsmanualfecalmicrobiotatransplantationclinicalfindingsanimalstudiesandinvitroscreening AT marcellacicilia washedmicrobiotatransplantationvsmanualfecalmicrobiotatransplantationclinicalfindingsanimalstudiesandinvitroscreening AT cuibota washedmicrobiotatransplantationvsmanualfecalmicrobiotatransplantationclinicalfindingsanimalstudiesandinvitroscreening AT chenglei washedmicrobiotatransplantationvsmanualfecalmicrobiotatransplantationclinicalfindingsanimalstudiesandinvitroscreening AT jiguozhong washedmicrobiotatransplantationvsmanualfecalmicrobiotatransplantationclinicalfindingsanimalstudiesandinvitroscreening AT zhangfaming washedmicrobiotatransplantationvsmanualfecalmicrobiotatransplantationclinicalfindingsanimalstudiesandinvitroscreening |