Emerging strategy towards mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease: what the future holds?

Abstract

For decades, the therapeutic goal of conventional treatment among inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients is alleviating exacerbations in acute phase, maintaining remission, reducing recurrence, preventing complications, and increasing quality of life. However, the persistent mucosal/submucosal inflammation tends to cause irreversible changes in the intestinal structure, which can barely be redressed by conventional treatment. In the late 1990s, monoclonal biologics, mainly anti-TNF (tumor necrosis factor) drugs, were proven significantly helpful in inhibiting mucosal inflammation and improving prognosis in clinical trials. Meanwhile, mucosal healing (MH), as a key endoscopic and histological measurement closely associated with the severity of symptoms, has been proposed as primary outcome measures. With deeper comprehension of the mucosal microenvironment, stem cell niche, and underlying mucosal repair mechanisms, diverse potential strategies apart from monoclonal antibodies have been arising or undergoing clinical trials. Herein, we elucidate key steps or targets during the course of MH and review some promising treatment strategies capable of promoting MH in IBD.

1 Introduction

Inflammatory bowel disease, a chronic and recurrent gastrointestinal disorder encompassing Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), is characterized by non-specific inflammation of the intestinal mucosa (1). The vast majority of IBD patients experience cycles of recurrence and remission marked by abdominal pain, diarrhoea, fever, and tenesmus (2, 3). The natural history of IBD is highly individualized, which varies across disease stages, ranging from asymptomatic or mild disease to severe manifestations necessitating hospitalization, surgery, disability, or even mortality (4). Most patients with IBD can achieve long-term symptom control through pharmacological therapy alone (5). However, in most cases where drug therapy fails to adequately suppress intestinal inflammation or when complications such as obstruction, perforation, and bleeding arise, surgical interventions are often indispensable to remove the affected intestine (6, 7). In turn, intestinal resection significantly impacts patients’ postoperative quality of life and may result in complications such as anastomotic leakage, bleeding, and short bowel syndrome, which could cause severe gastrointestinal damage or even systemic dysfunction (8). Though several treatment methods are available, unfortunately, IBD cannot be cured.

Various elements contribute to the pathophysiology of IBD (Figure 1). In the interplay of various intricate factors, a cascade of events occurs, resulting in modified microbial communities, aberrant expression of tight junction (TJ) proteins, and impairment to the mucus layer that facilitates the infiltration of luminal bacteria into the submucosa (9, 10), leading to mucosal inflammation and destruction. Subsequently, neutrophils are recruited to the site of infection, where phagocytose microorganisms and generate neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) to immobilize pathogens (11). The demand for neutrophils during acute inflammation is met by rapid granulopoiesis in the bone marrow driven by the IL17-IL23A-CSF3 axis (12). Monocytes and macrophages eliminate cellular debris generated by neutrophil activity, producing TNF, IL-6, IL-12, and IL-23 (2, 13). Subsequently, monocyte-macrophages act as antigen-presenting cells (APC) and participate in T helper cell differentiation into Th1, Th2, Th17, and other subtypes (14). B cell activation occurs in IBD, and the expansion of B cells has been shown to impede epithelial-stromal cell interactions (15). Further comprehension of the pathogenesis of IBD is pivotal in propelling research and development of targeted pharmaceuticals and novel therapeutic approaches, thereby facilitating the treatment and management of IBD while enhancing the quality of life for patients afflicted with this condition.

Figure 1

As the etiology of IBD remains elusive, the primary objective of treatment is to alleviate inflammation through various therapies including 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), antibiotics, corticosteroids, immunosuppressive agents and biological interventions (16). In the past, symptom assessment remains the cornerstone of clinical practice in the diagnosis and management of IBD, playing a pivotal role in evaluating disease severity, surgical candidacy, and treatment response (17). This underscores the importance of adopting a symptom-driven approach to managing symptoms such as abdominal pain, diarrhea, gastrointestinal bleeding, among others (17, 18). Ultimately, achieving clinical remission represents a key therapeutic goal for most IBD patients, which is accepted by patients and doctors. The utilization of standardized clinical scoring systems, such as the Truelove and Witts criteria, facilitated a more objective evaluation of the disease (19). The resolution of intestinal inflammation, repair of intestinal damage, and restoration of intestinal ecological balance should not be solely inferred from the relief of clinical symptoms (20). Currently, mucosal healing has emerged as a new long-term goal in IBD treatment and has garnered significant attention in recent years (21, 22).

2 Definition of Mucosal healing

A crucial characteristic of IBD is the impairment of the intestinal mucosal barrier (IMB) (23), which leads to the translocation of microorganisms and other antigens into the internal environment, resulting in uncontrolled immune activation (24). Current studies believe that the impairment of IMB may be the initial link in the development of IBD, whose severity is closely related to the symptoms (23). The foundation of mucosal healing is based on an undamaged barrier that limits the movement of bacteria and subsequent immune response activation (25). Definitions specific to mucosal healing often rely on endoscopic criteria such as the absence of ulcers with no fragility, blood, erosion or ulceration in CD and UC; or complete resolution of inflammatory and ulcerative lesions in both forms of IBD (25, 26). The evaluation criteria of mucosal healing are constantly changing, but Simplified Endoscopic Activity Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD) and Mayo score based on endoscopy is still one of the mainstream methods of mucosal healing diagnosis (27) (28). In fact, microscopic inflammation has been reported in up to 25% of patients with endoscopic mucosal healing (29). Additionally, the histological evaluation of mucosal healing is constantly evolving, and the histological definition and criteria of mucosal healing have evolved from “elimination of mucosal ulcer/erosion” to “absence of neutrophilic infiltration” (30). Therefore, the presence or absence of active inflammation has become a consensus in histological evaluation of mucosal healing. Currently, more than 30 different histological scoring systems have been created (31, 32), despite the fact that their utilization in clinical settings is still restricted. The Simplified Histologic Mucosal Healing Scheme (SHMHS) can identify active inflammation that may not be visible during endoscopy, and facilitate clinical application (33). Some scholars integrated endoscopy, histology, and other factors to avoid the potential inaccuracies of single index diagnosis. They focused on assessing neutrophil infiltration as a key determinant of disease progression and histological remission (34). In fact, the diagnosis of mucosal healing based on endoscopic techniques faces significant challenges in clinical practice (35, 36). For certain IBD patients, endoscopy is neither tolerable or necessary (37). Therefore, it is worth exploringto balance the advantages and disadvantages of endoscopy or expand the definition of mucosal healing further while avoiding invasive interventions. Some scholars have suggested that fecal calprotectin and other markers can serve as substitutes for serum or fecal markers (38–40). This approach would alleviate the discomfort experienced by IBD patients and reduce treatment costs (41). In the past few years, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) has mitigated operator errors in endoscopy or pathological interpretation and optimized diagnostic criteria for mucosal healing (42, 43). It is foreseeable that mucosal healing evaluation will need to evolve towards a multifactorial approach.

The process of mucosal healing involves a complex interplay between ISCs and signaling molecules throughout the course of regeneration. The regulation of ISC-driven differentiation into epithelial cells is mediated by BMP, Wnt, and Notch signalling pathways (44, 45). It is widely accepted that intestinal epithelial cells (IECs) located at the border of damaged mucosa, regulated by transforming growth factor-alpha/beta (TGF-α/β), trefoil factor and other signaling molecules (46–48), undergo redifferentiation, lose their columnar phenotype and acquire a migratory phenotype to migrate towards the defect site in order to form a primary barrier (49). Subsequently, regulated by nuclear factor-κb (NF-κB) and other factors (50), epithelial cells facilitates the stabilization and maturation of the nascent mucosal barrier. Ultimately, these newly formed undifferentiated epithelial cells undergo a process of differentiation, giving rise to a diverse array of mature intestinal epithelial cell types, encompassing Paneth cells, goblet cells, enteroendocrine cells, enterocytes and M cells, which give rise to the intestinal epithelial barriers (IEB).

3 The progress and dilemma of traditional therapies

When considering the possibility of incomplete healing of a patient’s intestinal mucosa, how to repair the intestinal ecosystem becomes a crucial question. Currently available treatments, such as sucralfate, 5-ASA, antibiotics, corticosteroids, and immunosuppressive agents (51, 52), primary focus symptom alleviation and mitigating of chronic inflammation rather than mucosal healing and intestinal ecological restoration as the end point of treatment. Although corticosteroids, methotrexate, and some immunosuppressive drugs promote healing of the intestinal mucosa to some extent in some studies (53, 54), they also lead to an increased risk of infection and cancer due to immunosuppression (55), so clinicians must balance the benefits with the risks.

Through continuous exploration of the complex mechanisms underlying IBD, treatment based on precise molecular targeting of inflammatory cascades has greatly advanced IBD therapy from clinical symptom relief to mucosal healing. Since the development and application of anti-TNF-α, a variety of monoclonal antibodies have been continuously developed and applied to enrich the precision targeted therapy for IBD.As first-line agents for the treatment of IBD, anti-TNF-α monoclonal antibodies such as infliximab and adalimumab have long been utilized to mitigate inflammation and promote mucosal healing (56). Anti-TNF-α therapy targets proinflammatory cytokines by obstructing soluble and membrane-bound TNF-α, inducing direct and indirect apoptosis of TNF-α-producing T cells and macrophages (57). Ultimately regulating intestinal inflammation, restoring the integrity of the IEB, and promoting mucosal healing. Several clinical studies have established a correlation between serum anti-TNF drug levels and mucosal healing in patients. For instance, Bella Ungar et al. (58) reported that maintaining a serum infliximab level of 6-10μg/mL can result in mucosal healing in 80% to 90% of adult IBD patients.

In certain patients, anti-TNF-α therapy may exhibit either non-response or withdrawal response, which could be attributed to specific network connections among IgG plasma cells, inflammatory mononuclear phagocytes, activated T cells and stromal cells (59). For such individuals, treatment alternatives have shifted towards monoclonal antibodies that target other inflammatory factors. For example, the monoclonal antibody ustekinumab, which specifically targets IL-12/23p40, demonstrated a significant reduction in endoscopic range of motion among patients with IBD, thereby exhibiting its capacity to facilitate the restoration of mucosal integrity (60). Risankizumab, guselkumab, and mirikizumab are inhibitors of IL-23p19 that have demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials for symptom improvement, endoscopic findings enhancement, and histological remission (61–63). Additionally, the specific target of vedolizumab is the α4β7 integrin, which interacts with cell adhesion molecule 1 (MAdCAM-1). In a long-term study conducted on 374 individuals diagnosed with UC, vedolizumab treatment resulted in clinical remission and mucosal healing for more than half of the participants (64). In recent years, a plethora of novel oral small-molecule drugs have emerged, including the JAK inhibitors tofacitinib, filgotinib, and upadacitinib as well as the sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator ozanimod, which have been granted regulatory approval for treating IBD (65, 66). Limited clinical trials have unequivocally confirmed their potential to foster mucosal healing (66, 67). Currently, an array of monoclonal drugs are being actively developed with promising available clinical data (65–67).

Anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) drugs have ushered in a new era of IBD treatment (68). At present, the use of monoclonal antibodies as a treatment for IBD presents a novel therapeutic approach that yields favorable outcomes for the majority of patients (69, 70). Nevertheless, some individuals remain unable to achieve optimal results despite this intervention, and clinicians continue to grapple with issues related to antidrug antibody-mediated ineffectiveness and withdrawal reactions (55, 71, (72). Additionally, physiological inflammation serves as a self-protective mechanism of the body; however, excessive immune response inhibition may result in other risks such as infection. The intricate involvement of proteins and signaling pathways in IBD highlights the significance of individual differences and remains a significant field for further investigation (73, 74).

4 Novel and potential emerging therapies

In recent years, there has been continuous development of drugs for the treatment of IBD and significant progress in therapeutic strategies. However, current treatment methods such as 5-ASA, monoclonal antibodies, and other drugs have not yet achieved optimal results (51). For some patients, these treatments may even lead to serious complications. Most of the current treatment methods are based on the “immunity” strategy, and exploring approaches to mitigate immune suppression may present a novel concept, as immunity is indispensable for maintaining human health. While some of these methods may seem impractical for clinical implementation, others such as enteral nutrition (EN), faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), and the utilization of certain growth factors have been partially integrated into clinical practice (75–77). These approaches demonstrate their potential in promoting mucosal healing without immunosuppression. These novel treatment methods have significantly advanced the development of intestinal mucosal healing and even hold the potential for curing IBD (Figure 2).

Figure 2

4.1 Dietary management and enteral nutrition

Dietary factors influence the occurrence and progression of IBD. Several epidemiological studies have confirmed the association between dietary macronutrient and micronutrient intake and the pathogenesis of IBD. For instance, adhering to a dietary pattern rich in fruits, vegetables, and fish has been shown to reduce the risk of developing UC by 50% among high school students (78). The role of diet in IBD is further supported by advancements in understanding genetic architecture and the gut microbiome’s influence on immune dysregulation leading to gut inflammation. However, parenteral nutrition (PN) adversely affects intestinal growth, reducing mucosal mass, cell proliferation, and mucosal immune function, which undoubtedly worsens the condition of IBD. Diet can impact gut inflammation through various mechanisms including modulation of the microbiome, tight junctions, and mucosal barriers. Dietary interventions that alter a patient’s microbiome composition during remission have demonstrated the potential for reversing many features associated with active diarrhea by affecting its metabolic function alongside its composition (79). A range of dietary approaches have been developed for patients with IBD, including Crohn’s Disease Exclusion Diet, IBD Anti-Inflammatory Diet, Specific Carbohydrate Diet, and others (80–82). These diets commonly emphasize a high intake of fruits and vegetables, and lean meats, while excluding most dairy products, canned foods, tea, coffee, and alcohol. However, they exhibit variations in recommendations regarding certain foods such as yogurt, beans, and nuts. The aforementioned also implies the necessity for further research into the impact of alterations in individual dietary components on the human physique and the development of more suitable dietary patterns. Moreover, the intricacy involved in food handling, processing, and packaging exacerbates the heterogeneity observed in dietary intervention studies (83). Consequently, finding a solution to effectively achieve homogeneity comparison becomes an issue that demands resolution.

The efficacy of enteral nutrition treatment modalities has been partially demonstrated, with exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) serving as a primary therapeutic approach for pediatric patients with CD, effectively alleviating clinical symptoms and promoting mucosal healing (84). Clinical studies have demonstrated that over 70% of children with CD treated with EEN achieved mucosal healing (85, 86). However, in adult patients, poor palatability often leads to low compliance with EEN, thereby diminishing its therapeutic efficacy (87). To assess the feasibility of using EEN in adult patients, Wall et al. (88) employed EEN alone or in combination with partial enteral nutrition for individuals suffering from active CD. The results showed clinical remission, reduced levels of serum CRP and FC, as well as increased serum insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) levels, suggesting a potential treatment for achieving mucosal healing. In another study conducted by Yang et al. (89), 47% of patients with complex active CD attained endoscopic mucosal healing following EEN treatment. Although not commonly used in UC patients, available evidence confirms the viability of synergistic corticosteroid therapy in cases of acute severe UC, significantly reducing CRP and FC levels (90). When attempting to elucidate the mechanism underlying mucosal healing induced by exclusive EEN, studies have observed a reduction in intestinal flora diversity, which appears contradictory to treatment expectations (91, 92). Alternative explanations encompass the modulation of inflammatory factors and hormones by EEN, including the secretion of serum IGF-1 and TGF-β1, as well as the promotion of mucosal healing (93). The future research directions should primarily focus on elucidating the underlying mechanisms by which EN enhances mucosal healing and its differential effects in patients with UC and CD. The forthcoming endeavors hold great promise in unraveling the intricate principles of enteral nutrition through extensive multicenter randomized trials, a pursuit that carries immense significance. Furthermore, enhancing palatability of EEN may facilitate wider adoption among adult patients.

4.2 Organoid culture engraftment

Organoids, derived from stem cells through in vitro culture and self-assembly, represent three-dimensional (3D) cell cultures that possess both structural and functional specificity akin to the corresponding tissues (94). The organoids formed by ISCs in vitro usually form Bud-like organs composed of hyperplastic protruding cryptlike domains, closely resembling the structure of intestinal epithelium in vivo (95). In 2009, Clevers and Sato first reported a method for long-term culture of intestinal epithelium from purified stem cells (96). Intestinal organoids have made many breakthroughs in basic research and personalized treatment development for IBD with the mature application of stem cell in vitro 3D culture technology. Intestinal organoids are used for disease modelling and as preclinical tools in regenerative medicine through in vivo transplantation (97). Multiple studies have demonstrated the possibility of transplanting organoids of intestinal stem cells into damaged colons to lead to tissue regeneration and mucosal healing (98, 99). Back in 2012, a study presented a comprehensive account of epithelial organoid transplantation into the colon of a mouse model with inflammatory enteritis. In this experiment, organoids were administered via enema and exhibited effective adherence to the injured site, thereby facilitating epithelial restoration (100). Previous studies also demonstrated that intestinal organoids implanted into dextran sulfate sodium (DSS) -induced colitis models can accurately target donor cells to locate on the surface of colitis-induced ulcers and begin to rebuild and repair crypt structures (101). Consistent with these findings, the same mouse-derived intestinal organoids were injected anally by Watanabe and colleagues to facilitate colon repair in UC mice. These cultured organoids exhibited precise targeting within the damaged intestinal epithelium, as anticipated based on prior developmental investigations, these organoids retained their regional characteristics and exhibited functional enteric properties (102). The rapid development of endoscopic techniques for organoid infusion has now been shortened to 10 minutes (102). However, there remain numerous challenges to be addressed in organoid transplantation. It is yet to be determined whether the success of organoid cultures in non-IBD tissues can be replicated in IBD tissues, and whether autologous transplantation offers advantages over allogeneic transplantation. Additionally, evaluating the stability of cultured karyotypes is essential to understand the risk of tumorigenesis associated with these techniques (98). Furthermore, there is a need for improvement in the current protocols utilized for the isolation and cultivation of intestinal organoids. Studies have shown that intestinal organoids may not develop appropriately when derived from inflamed segments with damaged or lost epithelial layers (103). Nonetheless, the concept of cultivating new tissue in vitro and subsequently transplanting it into areas devoid of mucosa holds great promise for the future.

4.3 Mesenchymal stem cells transplantation

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are thought to be a versatile type of stem cells capable of differentiation, which can be derived from various sources, such as bone marrow, adipose tissue, umbilical cord and so on (104). MSCs have demonstrated the capacity to relocate towards areas affected by colitis-induced damage, where they possess the ability to differentiate into constituent cells of the intestinal epithelium or vascular endothelium. Alternatively, they can work together with intestinal epithelial stem cells in producing cytokines and promoting the healing process of the mucosal layer (105). MSCs mediate intestinal immune regulation through the secretion of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) and nitric oxide (NO) (106). Due to the presence of these soluble factors, MSCs exhibit immunomodulatory effects on various immune cell subsets. It has been documented that MSCs suppress Th1 and Th17 responses while promoting Th2 and Treg-mediated responses, thereby ameliorating colonic inflammation (107). Furthermore, MSCs supported intestinal barrier function by inducing the proliferation of IECs and up-regulating expression of TJ proteins, thereby ensuring intestinal barrier integrity (108). Hence, the transplantation of MSCs emerges as a promising therapeutic strategy for IBD due to their ability to secrete diverse bioactive molecules. Various clinical trials are currently underway to assess the safety and efficacy of MSCs in patients with IBD, and these findings have yielded positive outcomes in animal studies. Although the safety and short-term effectiveness of MSCs administration has been demonstrated, further validation is required to ascertain their long-term efficacy in transplantation. Prior research has shown that local injection of adipose-derived MSCs can effectively treat fistulas in CD (109, 110), and the recent meta-analysis encompassing seven trials investigating the efficacy of MSCs derived from bone marrow and umbilical cord in patients with UC demonstrated a certain level of efficacy (111). Despite some positive findings, the outcomes of systemic MSCs therapy in luminal CD patients thus far have been underwhelming. The results of various clinical trials have exhibited significant heterogeneity to date (112, 113), emphasizing the necessity for high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials and fundamental research.

In fact, less than 1% of intravenous MSCs can reach the damaged colon (114), and the method of MSCs transplantation is controversial. Despite the non-immunogenicity of allogeneic and autologous MSCs (115), stem cell transplantation may present certain drawbacks, including significant financial costs and the possibility of malignant transformation (112). Furthermore, the safety profile of systemic MSCs remains to be thoroughly investigated due to reports of exacerbated outcomes in patients with UC or CD, necessitating further exploration. Additionally, it is imperative to address the optimal source, route of administration, and dosage of MSCs.

Some studies have turned their attention to exosomes secreted by mesenchymal stem cells (MSC-Exos) and have been used in various IBD models with promising results (116). Yang et al. (117) have significantly improved IBD symptoms by intraperitoneal injection of MSC-Exos. MSC-Exos can alleviate intestinal inflammation by increasing the expression of tumor necrosis factor-stimulating gene 6 (TSG-6) expression to repair the IMB and maintain immune balance (117). The utilization of MSCs for regenerating damaged mucosa holds great promise in expanding both the scope and efficacy of this therapeutic approach. A primary limitation of MSC-Exos therapy lies in its low yield, which presents a significant impediment to its clinical application. However, this challenge can be effectively overcome by embracing a 3D culture system as an alternative to the conventional 2D culture system (118).

The therapeutic approaches for MSCs can be complex and varied, incorporating autologous application, allogeneic MSCs, and cellular derivatives. These advancements hold immense potential in paving the path towards groundbreaking therapeutic strategies in IBD. Nevertheless, attaining this goal requires tackling fresh challenges by skillfully integrating cutting-edge methodologies and technologies while judiciously selecting ideal sources of MSCs to specifically target the multifaceted pathophysiological mechanisms involved in IBD.

4.4 Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT)

Intestinal dysbiosis plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis and progression of IBD, as well as in the persistence of complications that significantly impact patients’ prognosis and overall quality of life (119). Research findings have indicated a notable decrease in the prevalence of advantageous microorganisms, including Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus (Enterobacter), and Firmicutes, among IBD patients (120, 121). Conversely, the abundance of pathogenic intestinal bacteria, such as Escherichia coli or Salmonella typhimurium, is significantly increased, which facilitates the progression of chronic mucosal inflammation by disrupting the integrity of the IMB (122–124). FMT, also known as the transfer of healthy individuals’ fecal microbiota to the intestinal tract of patients with IBD, presents a novel approach for treating IBD (76). The administration of FMT is commonly performed through nasogastric or nasojejunal tube, colonoscopy, enema, or oral capsule delivery routes (125). FMT can increase the diversity or abundance of the intestinal flora of the recipient. Specific microorganisms and microbial metabolites can regulate the wound repair of colonic epithelium after mucosal injury (126–128), thereby relieving clinical symptoms and promoting mucosal healing. Biao et al. (129), through repeated FMT combined with partial enteral nutrition, demonstrated improved clinical symptoms and enhanced mucosal healing in pediatric patients with active CD. However, severe IBD patients often experience adverse consequences due to compromised intestinal mucosal barrier function when undergoing FMT (130, 131). A systematic review of 129 studies on FMT across various medical conditions revealed an overall incidence rate of adverse events (ADE) at 19%, encompassing symptoms such as abdominal pain, diarrhea, fever, and other gastrointestinal disorders (132). In future research, greater attention should be devoted to aspects such as fecal donor selection, delivery system optimization, treatment duration determination, and standardization of emphasis in the field of fecal transplantation. The infection caused by Clostridium difficile (CDI) is a prevalent complication of IBD and is closely linked to the unfavorable prognosis of IBD. Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted approval for rectal administration of Live-JSLM (REBYOTA) and oral delivery of Vowst, both microbiota-based products, for the treatment of CDI (133, 134). However, clinical trial evidence that excludes patients with IBD and uses clinical symptom relief as an effective indicator for treating CDI is still insufficient to apply these drugs to patients with IBD (135). Furthermore, considering the presence of potential adverse reactions associated with these drugs, it is imperative to meticulously evaluate both efficacy and safety aspects in forthcoming clinical trials.

Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), as crucial metabolites of the intestinal microbiota, primarily consist of acetate, propionate, and butyrate (122). They not only facilitate the proliferation and differentiation of colonic epithelial cells, maintaining intestinal mucosal epithelial barrier stability, but also regulate gut inflammatory response (135, 136), thereby potentially serving as treatments for FMT. In vitro and animal studies have demonstrated that butyrate possesses anti-inflammatory properties by inhibiting the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, thereby alleviating inflammation during IBD progression (122, 137). This discovery holds significant implications for IBD treatment, suggesting that supplementation of short-chain fatty acids could be a promising approach to promote intestinal mucosal healing. Both oral administration and enema delivery can be employed to administer short-chain fatty acids; however, enema administration circumvents challenges associated with intestinal absorption while ensuring direct drug delivery to the colon (138). Consequently, this may lead to divergent outcomes in patients with UC and CD. In colitis-induced mouse models, acetate supplementation plays a crucial role in the gut’s response to injury and tissue repair (139). A preliminary study by Facchin et al. confirmed that sodium butyrate supplementation reduces inflammation in patients with IBD (140). Although there exists some preclinical evidence along with limited clinical data supporting potential therapeutic applications based on SCFAs therapies, further research is warranted to comprehensively elucidate their mechanisms of action, safety profiles, optimal dosage regimens, as well as long-term effects for treating IBD.

4.5 Extracellular matrix

The intestinal extracellular matrix (ECM) is a functional protein complex assembled in a specific grid structure composed of glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) (141, 142). Its major components include collagens, elastin, laminins and proteoglycan (143). In addition to providing structural support for cells in tissues, the ECM also plays an active role in various cellular processes such as proliferation and migration (144). An increasing body of evidence demonstrates that in the process of mucosal healing, patients with IBD experience an augmented damage and repair mechanism of extracellular matrix due to enhanced protease activity and deposition of ECM degradation products, thereby disrupting the delicate equilibrium between ECM damage and repair (145, 146). Lindholm et al. (147) found that DSS caused direct damage to the intestinal basement membrane in an acute colitis rat model, and established a robust association between Collagen III remodeling and matrix regeneration during resolution of the injury. Meanwhile, the reconstruction of the mucosal layer in vitro was observed to be facilitated by fibronectin and Collagen IV, thereby enhancing the migration of intestinal epithelial crypt cells (148). The study conducted by Stronati et al. (149) revealed that dipotassium glycyrrhizate (DPG) effectively facilitated the process of mucosal healing through upregulation of the expression levels of ECM remodeling enzyme PLAUR and its ligand VTN. These collectively indicate that ECM remodelling is associated with the degree of intestinal mucosal healing. Therefore, the modulation of medical pathways that impact the ECM and its regenerative capacity following injury may hold promise as potential therapeutic interventions for IBD (150, 151). In the field of tissue engineering, hydrogel formulations based on ECM have demonstrated their reparative potential in specific tissues (152). Therefore, considering the use of ECM-derived hydrogels from the gut to promote healing of intestinal mucosal injuries alone appears to be a worthwhile consideration. However, due to the intricate composition of ECM and its associated pathophysiological processes that remain incompletely elucidated, in addition to the increasing integration of ECM as a carrier and other technologies in current studies (153), challenges arise when confirming the independent role of ECM in intestinal repair, necessitating further discussion.

4.6 Intestinal growth factors

TGF-β is a multifunctional cytokine synthesized by various cell types, which exerts pivotal regulatory effects on diverse cellular processes, immune responses, intestinal epithelial cell proliferation inhibition, and differentiation induction (154). In the context of intestinal immunity, TGF-β serves to suppress inflammatory responses elicited by luminal bacterial antigens and attenuate the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (155, 156). The efficacy of TGF-β treatment in ameliorating methotrexate-induced intestinal mucositis in rats has been substantiated by studies, which revealed its ability to augment p-ERK and β-catenin-mediated intestinal cell proliferation while concurrently inhibiting apoptosis and preventing mucosal injury (157). Activation of the Smad pathway mediated by TGF-β can promote mucosal injury repair through enhanced epithelial revascularization while driving processes such as intestinal fibrosis, angiogenesis, and obstruction (158). High levels of Smad7 are intracellular inhibitors of TGF-β/Smad signaling (156). It has been reported that oral administration of Smad7 antisense oligonucleotide restores TGF-β signal transduction in the intestinal tract, thereby promoting clinical symptom resolution and endoscopic healing in patients with CD (159, 160). Despite these promising findings, a Phase 3 clinical trial yielded no clinical or endoscopic efficacy for Mongersen. However, the underlying reasons for this observed ineffectiveness remain uncertain, encompassing potential factors such as inadequate concentrations of the drug in colonic or ileal tissues, intended pharmacological mechanisms, or characteristics of the patient population (161). Although no definitive evidence exists, recent research suggests that variations in diastereoisomer content across different batches of mongersen used during the development program may contribute to disparate outcomes observed in clinical trials, thus explaining the failure of the Phase 3 trial (162). Further research and exploration are required to determine whether specific modifications in manufacturing schemes can effectively reduce diastereoisomer complexity. Moreover, the study revealed a significant association between long-term Smad7 deficiency and heightened progression of intestinal fibrosis (163). It is evident that additional experiments are warranted to further investigate the role of Smad7 in inflammatory responses related to IBD and reassess the efficacy and potential risks of mongersen as a therapeutic approach for IBD.

The Trefoil factor (TFF) family comprises three peptides, known as TFF1, TFF2, and TFF3, which are released by goblet cells located in the mucosa of the intestines (164). Among these peptides, TFF3 is predominantly synthesized by goblet cells in both the small and large intestine (165). Notably, TFF3 plays a crucial role in upholding the integrity of the IMB through its regulation of cytokine expression and immune cell migration (164), and PI3K/Akt signaling pathways are activated to enhance wound healing in vitro (166). An evident upregulation of serum TFF3 is observed in IBD patients and confirmed to be associated with disease activity, indicating its potential as a non-invasive marker (167). Studies have demonstrated that the utilization of TFFs facilitates the restoration of gastrointestinal mucosa, thereby presenting an innovative method for addressing the management of IBD. However, conflicting outcomes are frequently observed in DSS-induced colitis animal models due to variations in TFF forms, dosages, and routes of administration (168–170). In order to optimize the application of TFFs, a recombinant adenovirus vector was constructed to deliver the human intestinal trefoil factor (hITF) gene for improved healing of intestinal mucosal injury (171). The optimal dosing strategy and underlying signaling pathways of TFF3 remain unclear; however, TFF3 has demonstrated significant potential in both the diagnosis and management of IBD.

5 Conclusion

With the further development of the definition of mucosal healing, the requirements of mucosal healing are no longer limited to the repair of the intestinal barrier under endoscopy and the restoration of intestinal function but require the balance and homeostasis of the intestinal ecosystem in terms of omics and biology, that is the dynamic balance between the intestinal barrier and intestinal flora. Because intestinal mucosal healing is closely related to the prognosis of IBD patients, and in the absence of means to promote mucosal healing, how to further improve the efficacy of current therapeutic measures and further develop new therapeutic modalities is a matter that needs to be considered at present and in the future. These new promising mucosal repair methods, including enteral nutrition, organoid transplantation, and intestinal microbiota transplantation, have been proposed, but the specific clinical practice remains a formidable challenge. Subsequent research will determine the viability of potentially promising pathways, while also weighing their impact against potential hazards and complexities like availability within biological systems, cell proliferation stimulation, and tumor formation.

References

• 1

  AgrawalMSpencerEAColombelJFUngaroRC. Approach to the management of recently diagnosed inflammatory bowel disease patients: A user's guide for adult and pediatric gastroenterologists. Gastroenterology (2021) 161(1):47–65. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.04.063

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  KobayashiTSiegmundBLe BerreCWeiSCFerranteMShenBet al. Ulcerative colitis. Nat Rev Dis Primers (2020) 6(1):74. doi: 10.1038/s41572-020-0205-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  RodaGChien NgSKotzePGArgolloMPanaccioneRSpinelliAet al. Crohn's disease. Nat Rev Dis Primers (2020) 6(1):22. doi: 10.1038/s41572-020-0156-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  ParienteBHuSBettenworthDSpecaSDesreumauxPMeuwisMAet al. Treatments for Crohn's disease-associated bowel damage: A systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol (2019) 17(5):847–56. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.06.043

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  KaplanGG. The global burden of IBD: from 2015 to 2025. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol (2015) 12(12):720–7. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2015.150

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  GalloGKotzePGSpinelliA. Surgery in ulcerative colitis: When? How? Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol (2018) 32-33:71–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2018.05.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  AdaminaMBonovasSRaineTSpinelliAWarusavitarneJArmuzziAet al. ECCO guidelines on therapeutics in Crohn's disease: surgical treatment. J Crohns Colitis (2020) 14(2):155–68. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz187

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  PatelKVDarakhshanAAGriffinNWilliamsABSandersonJDIrvingPM. Patient optimization for surgery relating to Crohn's disease. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol (2016) 13(12):707–19. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2016.158

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  GhouriYATahanVShenB. Secondary causes of inflammatory bowel diseases. World J Gastroenterol (2020) 26:3998–4017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i28.3998

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  NighotPMaT. Endocytosis of intestinal tight junction proteins: in time and space. Inflammation Bowel Dis (2021) 27(2):283–90. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izaa141

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  YuenJPlutheroFGDoudaDNRiedlMCherryAUlanovaMet al. NETosing neutrophils activate complement both on their own NETs and Bacteria via alternative and non-alternative pathways. Front Immunol (2016) 7:137. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2016.00137

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  MannEASaeedSA. Gastrointestinal infection as a trigger for inflammatory bowel disease. Curr Opin Gastroenterol (2012) 28(1):24–9. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0b013e32834c453e

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  ElinavEStrowigTKauALHenao-MejiaJThaissCABoothCJet al. NLRP6 inflammasome regulates colonic microbial ecology and risk for colitis. Cell (2011) 145(5):745–57. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.04.022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  LiangJHuangHIBenzattiFPKarlssonABZhangJJYoussefNet al. Inflammatory Th1 and Th17 in the intestine are each driven by functionally specialized dendritic cells with distinct requirements for myD88. Cell Rep (2016) 17(5):1330–43. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.09.091

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  FredeACzarnewskiPMonasterioGTripathiKPBejaranoDARamirez FloresROet al. B cell expansion hinders the stroma-epithelium regenerative cross talk during mucosal healing. Immunity (2022) 55(12):2336–51.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2022.11.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  OtteMLLama TamangRPapapanagiotouJAhmadRDhawanPSinghAB. Mucosal healing and inflammatory bowel disease: Therapeutic implications and new targets. World J Gastroenterol (2023) 29(7):1157–72. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i7.1157

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  SinopoulouVGordonMAkobengAKGasparettoMSammaanMVasiliouJet al. Interventions for the management of abdominal pain in Crohn's disease and inflammatory bowel disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2021) 11(11):CD013531. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013531.pub2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  PapayPIgnjatovicAKarmirisKAmaranteHMilhellerPFeaganBet al. Optimising monitoring in the management of Crohn's disease: a physician's perspective. J Crohns Colitis (2013) 7(8):653–69. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2013.02.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  GuptaVMohsenWChapmanTPSatsangiJ. Predicting outcome in acute severe colitis-controversies in clinical practice in 2021. J Crohns Colitis (2021) 15(7):1211–21. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjaa265

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  StateMNegreanuLVoiosuTVoiosuABalanescuPMateescuRB. Surrogate markers of mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review. World J Gastroenterol (2021) 27(16):1828–40. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i16.1828

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  MazzuoliSGuglielmiFWAntonelliESalemmeMBassottiGVillanacciV. Definition and evaluation of mucosal healing in clinical practice. Dig Liver Dis (2013) 45(12):969–77. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2013.06.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  Boal CarvalhoPCotterJ. Mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis: A comprehensive review. Drugs (2017) 77(2):159–73. doi: 10.1007/s40265-016-0676-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  RamosGPPapadakisKA. Mechanisms of disease: inflammatory bowel diseases. Mayo Clin Proc (2019) 94(1):155–65. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  GomaaEZ. Human gut microbiota/microbiome in health and diseases: a review. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek (2020) 113(12):2019–40. doi: 10.1007/s10482-020-01474-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  VillablancaEJSelinKHedinCRH. Mechanisms of mucosal healing: treating inflammatory bowel disease without immunosuppression? Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol (2022) 19(8):493–507. doi: 10.1038/s41575-022-00604-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  MoriichiKFujiyaMOkumuraT. The endoscopic diagnosis of mucosal healing and deep remission in inflammatory bowel disease. Dig Endosc (2021) 33(7):1008–23. doi: 10.1111/den.13863

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  DapernoMD'HaensGVan AsscheGBaertFBuloisPMaunouryVet al. Development and validation of a new, simplified endoscopic activity score for Crohn's disease: the SES-CD. Gastrointest Endosc (2004) 60(4):505–12. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(04)01878-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  Barreiro-de AcostaMVallejoNde la IglesiaDUribarriLBastónIFerreiro-IglesiasRet al. Evaluation of the risk of relapse in ulcerative colitis according to the degree of mucosal healing (Mayo 0 vs 1): A longitudinal cohort study. J Crohns Colitis (2016) 10(1):13–9. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjv158

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  PennelliGGrilloFGaluppiniFIngravalloGPilozziERuggeMet al. Gastritis: update on etiological features and histological practical approach. Pathologica (2020) 112(3):153–65. doi: 10.32074/1591-951X-163

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  MagroFSabinoJRosiniFTripathiMBorralhoPBaldinPet al. ECCO position on harmonisation of Crohn's disease mucosal histopathology. J Crohns Colitis (2022) 16(6):876–83. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  Marchal-BressenotASalleronJBoulagnon-RombiCBastienCCahnVCadiotGet al. Development and validation of the Nancy histological index for UC. Gut (2017) 66(1):43–9. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310187

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  BryantRVWinerSTravisSPRiddellRH. Systematic review: histological remission in inflammatory bowel disease. Is 'complete' remission the new treatment paradigm? An IOIBD initiative. J Crohns Colitis (2014) 8(12):1582–97. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2014.08.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  CaputoAParentePCadeiMFassanMRispoALeonciniGet al. Simplified Histologic Mucosal Healing Scheme (SHMHS) for inflammatory bowel disease: a nationwide multicenter study of performance and applicability. Tech Coloproctol (2022) 26(9):713–23. doi: 10.1007/s10151-022-02628-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  GuiXBazarovaADel AmorRViethMde HertoghGVillanacciVet al. PICaSSO Histologic Remission Index (PHRI) in ulcerative colitis: development of a novel simplified histological score for monitoring mucosal healing and predicting clinical outcomes and its applicability in an artificial intelligence system. Gut (2022) 71(5):889–98. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-326376

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  DentersMJSchreuderMDeplaACMallant-HentRCvan KouwenMCDeutekomMet al. Patients' perception of colonoscopy: patients with inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome experience the largest burden. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol (2013) 25(8):964–72. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e328361dcd3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  KimSYKimHSParkHJ. Adverse events related to colonoscopy: Global trends and future challenges. World J Gastroenterol (2019) 25(2):190–204. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i2.190

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  DragoniGInnocentiTGalliA. Biomarkers of inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease: how long before abandoning single-marker approaches? Dig Dis (2021) 39(3):190–203. doi: 10.1159/000511641

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  JukicABakiriLWagnerEFTilgHAdolphTE. Calprotectin: from biomarker to biological function. Gut (2021) 70(10):1978–88. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324855

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  ShinzakiSMatsuokaKIijimaHMizunoSSeradaSFujimotoMet al. Leucine-rich Alpha-2 glycoprotein is a serum biomarker of mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis (2017) 11(1):84–91. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw132

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  GuoXHuangCXuJXuHLiuLZhaoHet al. Gut microbiota is a potential biomarker in inflammatory bowel disease. Front Nutr (2022) 8:818902. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2021.818902

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  TarapatziGFilidouEKandilogiannakisLVradelisSKoliosG. Biomarkers in inflammatory bowel diseases: predicting the indication and the effect of biologics. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis (2022) 31(2):229–43. doi: 10.15403/jgld-4229

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  KolethGEmmanueJSpadacciniMMascagniPKhalafKMoriYet al. Artificial intelligence in gastroenterology: Where are we heading? Endosc Int Open (2022) 10(11):E1474–80. doi: 10.1055/a-1907-6569

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  TontiniGERimondiAVerneroMNeumannHVecchiMBezzioCet al. Artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and new horizons. Therap Adv Gastroenterol (2021) 14:17562848211017730. doi: 10.1177/17562848211017730

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  CooperSTMcNeilPL. Membrane repair: mechanisms and pathophysiology. Physiol Rev (2015) 95(4):1205–40. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00037.2014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  OkamotoRWatanabeM. Molecular and clinical basis for the regeneration of human gastrointestinal epithelia. J Gastroenterol (2004) 39(1):1–6. doi: 10.1007/s00535-003-1259-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  SturmADignassAU. Epithelial restitution and wound healing in inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol (2008) 14(3):348–53. doi: 10.3748/wjg.14.348

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  BeckPLRosenbergIMXavierRJKohTWongJFPodolskyDK. Transforming growth factor-beta mediates intestinal healing and susceptibility to injury in vitro and in vivo through epithelial cells. Am J Pathol (2003) 162(2):597–608. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9440(10)63853-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  HoffmannPZeehJMLakshmananJWuVSProcaccinoFReinshagenMet al. Increased expression of transforming growth factor alpha precursors in acute experimental colitis in rats. Gut (1997) 41(2):195–202. doi: 10.1136/gut.41.2.195

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  OncelSBassonMD. Gut homeostasis, injury, and healing: New therapeutic targets. World J Gastroenterol (2022) 28(17):1725–50. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i17.1725

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  MartiniEKrugSMSiegmundBNeurathMFBeckerC. Mend your fences: the epithelial barrier and its relationship with mucosal immunity in inflammatory bowel disease. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol (2017) 4(1):33–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2017.03.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  SinghSFeuersteinJDBinionDGTremaineWJ. AGA technical review on the management of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology (2019) 156(3):769–808.e29. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.12.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  MagroFCordeiroGDiasAMEstevinhoMM. Inflammatory bowel disease - non-biological treatment. Pharmacol Res (2020) 160:105075. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2020.105075

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  DingZNinanKJohnstonBCMoayyediPSherlockMZachosM. Microbiota signatures and mucosal healing in the use of enteral nutrition therapy v. corticosteroids for the treatment of children with Crohn's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Nutr (2023) 15:1–18. doi: 10.1017/S0007114523000405

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  GranotMCohenSShouvalDSHabermanYLahadAAssaAet al. Mucosal healing with methotrexate versus azathioprine treatment in pediatric Crohn's disease as reflected by fecal calprotectin. Minerva Pediatr (Torino) (2022). doi: 10.23736/S2724-5276.22.06745-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  PicardoSSeowCH. The impact of pregnancy on biologic therapies for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol (2020) 44-45:101670. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2020.101670

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  PuglieseDPriviteraGCrispinoFMezzinaNCastiglioneFFiorinoGet al. Effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab in a matched cohort of elderly and nonelderly patients with inflammatory bowel disease: the IG-IBD LIVE study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther (2022) 56(1):95–109. doi: 10.1111/apt.16923

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  SommerKWiendlMMüllerTMHeidbrederKVoskensCNeurathMFet al. Intestinal mucosal wound healing and barrier integrity in IBD-crosstalk and trafficking of cellular players. Front Med (Lausanne) (2021) 8:643973. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.643973

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  UngarBLevyIYavneYYavzoriMPicardOFudimEet al. Optimizing anti-TNF-α Therapy: serum levels of infliximab and adalimumab are associated with mucosal healing in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol (2016) 14(4):550–7.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.10.025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  MartinJCChangCBoschettiGUngaroRGiriMGroutJAet al. Single-cell analysis of Crohn's disease lesions identifies a pathogenic cellular module associated with resistance to anti-TNF therapy. Cell (2019) 178(6):1493–508.e20. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.08.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  RutgeertsPGasinkCChanDLangYPollackPColombelJFet al. Efficacy of ustekinumab for inducing endoscopic healing in patients with Crohn's disease. Gastroenterology (2018) 155(4):1045–58. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.06.035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  D'HaensGPanaccioneRBaertFBossuytPColombelJFDaneseSet al. Risankizumab as induction therapy for Crohn's disease: results from the phase 3 ADVANCE and MOTIVATE induction trials. Lancet (2022) 399(10340):2015–30. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00467-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  Peyrin-BirouletLAllegrettiJRRubinDTBresslerBGerminaroMHuangKGet al. Guselkumab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: QUASAR phase 2b induction study. Gastroenterology (2023) 165(6):1443–57. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.08.038

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  D'HaensGDubinskyMKobayashiTIrvingPMHowaldtSPokrotnieksJet al. Mirikizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med (2023) 388(26):2444–55. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2207940

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  FeaganBGRutgeertsPSandsBEHanauerSColombelJFSandbornWJet al. Vedolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med (2013) 369(8):699–710. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1215734

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  NielsenOHBoyeTLGubatanJChakravartiDJaquithJBLaCasseEC. Selective JAK1 inhibitors for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Pharmacol Ther (2023) 245:108402. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2023.108402

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  DaneseSPanaccioneRAbreuMTRubinDTGhoshSDignassAet al. Efficacy and safety of approximately 3 years of continuous ozanimod in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: interim analysis of the True North open-label extension. J Crohns Colitis (2023), jjad146. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad146

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  RaineTIshiguroYRubinDTFinney-HaywardTVladeaRLiuJet al. Impact of baseline corticosteroid use on the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in patients with ulcerative colitis: a post Hoc analysis of the phase 3 clinical trial programme. J Crohns Colitis (2023), jjad190. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad190

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  PuglieseDFeliceCPapaAGasbarriniARapacciniGLGuidiLet al. Anti TNF-α therapy for ulcerative colitis: current status and prospects for the future. Expert Rev Clin Immunol (2017) 13(3):223–33. doi: 10.1080/1744666X.2017.1243468

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  TakeuchiIKaburakiYAraiKShimizuHHiranoYNagataSet al. Infliximab for very early-onset inflammatory bowel disease: A tertiary center experience in Japan. J Gastroenterol Hepatol (2020) 35(4):593–600. doi: 10.1111/jgh.14836

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  SandsBEIrvingPMHoopsTIzanecJLGaoLLGasinkCet al. Ustekinumab versus adalimumab for induction and maintenance therapy in biologic-naive patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3b trial. Lancet (2022) 399(10342):2200–11. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00688-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  CholapraneeAHazlewoodGSKaplanGGPeyrin-BirouletLAnanthakrishnanAN. Systematic review with meta-analysis: comparative efficacy of biologics for induction and maintenance of mucosal healing in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis controlled trials. Aliment Pharmacol Ther (2017) 45(10):1291–302. doi: 10.1111/apt.14030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  DahmusJRosarioMClarkeK. Risk of lymphoma associated with anti-TNF therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: implications for therapy. Clin Exp Gastroenterol (2020) 13:339–50. doi: 10.2147/CEG.S237646

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  FineSPapamichaelKCheifetzAS. Etiology and management of lack or loss of response to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) (2019) 15(12):656–65.

  • Google Scholar

• 74

  CarrollMWKuenzigMEMackDROtleyARGriffithsAMKaplanGGet al. The impact of inflammatory bowel disease in Canada 2018: children and adolescents with IBD. J Can Assoc Gastroenterol (2019) 2(Suppl 1):S49–67. doi: 10.1093/jcag/gwy056

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  ForbesAEscherJHébuterneXKłękSKrznaricZSchneiderSet al. ESPEN guideline: Clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Nutr (2017) 36(2):321–47. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2016.12.027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  WeingardenARVaughnBP. Intestinal microbiota, fecal microbiota transplantation, and inflammatory bowel disease. Gut Microbes (2017) 8(3):238–52. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2017.1290757

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  KrishnanKArnoneBBuchmanA. Intestinal growth factors: potential use in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease and their role in mucosal healing. Inflammation Bowel Dis (2011) 17(1):410–22. doi: 10.1002/ibd.21316

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  AnanthakrishnanANKhaliliHSongMHiguchiLMRichterJMNimptschKet al. High school diet and risk of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Inflammation Bowel Dis (2015) 21(10):2311–9. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000501

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  ReddavideRRotoloOCarusoMGStasiENotarnicolaMMiragliaCet al. The role of diet in the prevention and treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. Acta Biomed (2018) 89(9-S):60–75. doi: 10.23750/abm.v89i9-S.7952

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  UrlepDOrelRKunstekPBenedikE. Treatment of active Crohn's disease in children using partial enteral nutrition combined with a modified Crohn's disease exclusion diet: A pilot prospective cohort trial on clinical and endoscopic outcomes. Nutrients (2023) 15(21):4676. doi: 10.3390/nu15214676

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  OlendzkiBCSilversteinTDPersuitteGMMaYBaldwinKRCaveD. An anti-inflammatory diet as treatment for inflammatory bowel disease: a case series report. Nutr J (2014) 13:5. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-13-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  RiveraNNguyenKKalamiVQinFMathurMBBlankenburgRet al. A specific carbohydrate diet virtual teaching kitchen curriculum promotes knowledge and confidence in caregivers of pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Nutrients (2023) 15(18):3999. doi: 10.3390/nu15183999

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  SassonANAnanthakrishnanANRamanM. Diet in treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol (2021) 19(3):425–35.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.054

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  RuemmeleFMVeresGKolhoKLGriffithsALevineAEscherJCet al. Consensus guidelines of ECCO/ESPGHAN on the medical management of pediatric Crohn's disease. J Crohns Colitis (2014) 8(10):1179–207. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2014.04.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  BorrelliOCordischiLCirulliMPaganelliMLabalestraVUcciniSet al. Polymeric diet alone versus corticosteroids in the treatment of active pediatric Crohn's disease: a randomized controlled open-label trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol (2006) 4(6):744–53. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2006.03.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  PigneurBLepagePMondotSSchmitzJGouletODoréJet al. Mucosal healing and bacterial composition in response to enteral nutrition vs steroid-based induction therapy-A randomised prospective clinical trial in children with Crohn's disease. J Crohns Colitis (2019) 13(7):846–55. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjy207

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  WallCLDayASGearryRB. Use of exclusive enteral nutrition in adults with Crohn's disease: a review. World J Gastroenterol (2013) 19(43):7652–60. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i43.7652

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  WallCLGearryRBDayAS. Treatment of active Crohn's disease with exclusive and partial enteral nutrition: A pilot study in adults. Inflammation Intest Dis (2018) 2(4):219–27. doi: 10.1159/000489630

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  YangQGaoXChenHLiMWuXZhiMet al. Efficacy of exclusive enteral nutrition in complicated Crohn's disease. Scand J Gastroenterol (2017) 52(9):995–1001. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2017.1335770

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  SahuPKediaSVuyyuruSKBajajAMarkandeyMSinghNet al. Randomised clinical trial: exclusive enteral nutrition versus standard of care for acute severe ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther (2021) 53(5):568–76. doi: 10.1111/apt.16249

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  GerasimidisKBertzMHanskeLJunickJBiskouOAguileraMet al. Decline in presumptively protective gut bacterial species and metabolites are paradoxically associated with disease improvement in pediatric Crohn's disease during enteral nutrition. Inflammation Bowel Dis (2014) 20(5):861–71. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  DiederenKLiJVDonachieGEde MeijTGde WaartDRHakvoortTBMet al. Exclusive enteral nutrition mediates gut microbial and metabolic changes that are associated with remission in children with Crohn's disease. Sci Rep (2020) 10(1):18879. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75306-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  BannerjeeKCamacho-HübnerCBabinskaKDryhurstKMEdwardsRSavageMOet al. Anti-inflammatory and growth-stimulating effects precede nutritional restitution during enteral feeding in Crohn disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr (2004) 38(3):270–5. doi: 10.1097/00005176-200403000-00007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  TuvesonDCleversH. Cancer modeling meets human organoid technology. Science (2019) 364(6444):952–5. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw6985

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  SprangersJZaalbergICMauriceMM. Organoid-based modeling of intestinal development, regeneration, and repair. Cell Death Differ (2021) 28(1):95–107. doi: 10.1038/s41418-020-00665-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  SatoTVriesRGSnippertHJvan de WeteringMBarkerNStangeDEet al. Single Lgr5 stem cells build crypt-villus structures in vitro without a mesenchymal niche. Nature (2009) 459(7244):262–5. doi: 10.1038/nature07935

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  LucafòMMuzzoAMarcuzziMGiorioLDecortiGStoccoG. Patient-derived organoids for therapy personalization in inflammatory bowel diseases. World J Gastroenterol (2022) 28(24):2636–53. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i24.2636

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  WatanabeSNishimuraRShirasakiTKatsukuraNHibiyaSKirimuraSet al. Schlafen 11 is a novel target for mucosal regeneration in ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis (2021) 15(9):1558–72. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab032

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  JeeJJeongSYKimHKChoiSYJeongSLeeJet al. In vivo evaluation of scaffolds compatible for colonoid engraftments onto injured mouse colon epithelium. FASEB J (2019) 33(9):10116–25. doi: 10.1096/fj.201802692RR

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  YuiSNakamuraTSatoTNemotoYMizutaniTZhengXet al. Functional engraftment of colon epithelium expanded in vitro from a single adult Lgr5⁺ stem cell. Nat Med (2012) 18(4):618–23. doi: 10.1038/nm.2695

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  SugimotoSOhtaYFujiiMMatanoMShimokawaMNankiKet al. Reconstruction of the human colon epithelium in vivo. Cell Stem Cell (2018) 22(2):171–6.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2017.11.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  WatanabeSKobayashiSOgasawaraNOkamotoRNakamuraTWatanabeMet al. Transplantation of intestinal organoids into a mouse model of colitis. Nat Protoc (2022) 17(3):649–71. doi: 10.1038/s41596-021-00658-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  YooJHDonowitzM. Intestinal enteroids/organoids: A novel platform for drug discovery in inflammatory bowel diseases. World J Gastroenterol (2019) 25(30):4125–47. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i30.4125

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  GrégoireCLechanteurCBriquetABaudouxÉBaronFLouisEet al. Review article: mesenchymal stromal cell therapy for inflammatory bowel diseases. Aliment Pharmacol Ther (2017) 45(2):205–21. doi: 10.1111/apt.13864

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  BarkerN. Adult intestinal stem cells: critical drivers of epithelial homeostasis and regeneration. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol (2014) 15(1):19–33. doi: 10.1038/nrm3721

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  SaadhMJMikhailovaMVRasoolzadeganSFalakiMAkhavanfarRGonzálesJLAet al. Therapeutic potential of mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs)-based cell therapy for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) therapy. Eur J Med Res (2023) 28(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s40001-023-01008-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  WangLDengZSunYZhaoYLiYYangMet al. The study on the regulation of Th cells by mesenchymal stem cells through the JAK-STAT signaling pathway to protect naturally aged sepsis model rats. Front Immunol (2022) 13:820685. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.820685

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  HashemiSMHassanZMHossein-KhannazerNPourfathollahAASoudiS. Investigating the route of administration and efficacy of adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells and conditioned medium in type 1 diabetic mice. Inflammopharmacology (2020) 28(2):585–601. doi: 10.1007/s10787-019-00661-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  LightnerALDozoisEJDietzABFletcherJGFritonJButlerGet al. Matrix-delivered autologous mesenchymal stem cell therapy for refractory rectovaginal Crohn's fistulas. Inflammation Bowel Dis (2020) 26(5):670–7. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izz215

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  PanésJGarcía-OlmoDVan AsscheGColombelJFReinischWBaumgartDCet al. Expanded allogeneic adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (Cx601) for complex perianal fistulas in Crohn's disease: a phase 3 randomised, double-blind controlled trial. Lancet (2016) 388(10051):1281–90. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31203-X

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  ShiXChenQWangF. Mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental and clinical studies. Stem Cell Res Ther (2019) 10(1):266. doi: 10.1186/s13287-019-1336-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  ForbesGMSturmMJLeongRWSparrowMPSegarajasingamDCumminsAGet al. A phase 2 study of allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cells for luminal Crohn's disease refractory to biologic therapy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol (2014) 12(1):64–71. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.06.021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  DhereTCoplandIGarciaMChiangKYChinnaduraiRPrasadMet al. The safety of autologous and metabolically fit bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells in medically refractory Crohn's disease - a phase 1 trial with three doses. Aliment Pharmacol Ther (2016) 44(5):471–81. doi: 10.1111/apt.13717

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  SalaEGenuaMPettiLAnselmoAArenaVCibellaJet al. Mesenchymal stem cells reduce colitis in mice via release of TSG6, independently of their localization to the intestine. Gastroenterology (2015) 149(1):163–76. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.03.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  WangYHuangBJinTOcanseyDKWJiangJMaoF. Intestinal fibrosis in inflammatory bowel disease and the prospects of mesenchymal stem cell therapy. Front Immunol (2022) 13:835005. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.835005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  ZhangYChenJFuHKuangSHeFZhangMet al. Exosomes derived from 3D-cultured MSCs improve therapeutic effects in periodontitis and experimental colitis and restore the Th17 cell/Treg balance in inflamed periodontium. Int J Oral Sci (2021) 13(1):43. doi: 10.1038/s41368-021-00150-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  YangSLiangXSongJLiCLiuALuoYet al. A novel therapeutic approach for inflammatory bowel disease by exosomes derived from human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells to repair intestinal barrier via TSG-6. Stem Cell Res Ther (2021) 12(1):315. doi: 10.1186/s13287-021-02404-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  SongEMJooYHChoeARParkYTaeCHHongJTet al. Three-dimensional culture method enhances the therapeutic efficacies of tonsil-derived mesenchymal stem cells in murine chronic colitis model. Sci Rep (2021) 11(1):19589. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-98711-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  NishidaANishinoKSakaiKOwakiYNodaYImaedaH. Can control of gut microbiota be a future therapeutic option for inflammatory bowel disease? World J Gastroenterol (2021) 27(23):3317–26. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i23.3317

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  FrankDNSt AmandALFeldmanRABoedekerECHarpazNPaceNR. Molecular-phylogenetic characterization of microbial community imbalances in human inflammatory bowel diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. (2007) 104(34):13780–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0706625104

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  MorganXCTickleTLSokolHGeversDDevaneyKLWardDVet al. Dysfunction of the intestinal microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease and treatment. Genome Biol (2012) 13(9):R79. doi: 10.1186/gb-2012-13-9-r79

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  Parada VenegasDde la FuenteMKLandskronGGonzálezMJQueraRDijkstraGet al. Short chain fatty acids (SCFAs)-mediated gut epithelial and immune regulation and its relevance for inflammatory bowel diseases. Front Immunol (2019) 10:277. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.00277

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  NishidaAInoueRInatomiOBambaSNaitoYAndohA. Gut microbiota in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. Clin J Gastroenterol (2018) 11(1):1–10. doi: 10.1007/s12328-017-0813-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  ChenMLGeZFoxJGSchauerDB. Disruption of tight junctions and induction of proinflammatory cytokine responses in colonic epithelial cells by Campylobacter jejuni. Infect Immun (2006) 74(12):6581–9. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00958-06

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  ImdadAPanditNGZamanMMinkoffNZTanner-SmithEEGomez-DuarteOGet al. Fecal transplantation for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2023) 4(4):CD012774. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012774.pub3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  AlamALeoniGQuirosMWuHDesaiCNishioHet al. The microenvironment of injured murine gut elicits a local pro-restitutive microbiota. Nat Microbiol (2016) 1:15021. doi: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2015.21

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  BessmanNJMathieuJRRRenassiaCZhouLFungTCFernandezKCet al. Dendritic cell-derived hepcidin sequesters iron from the microbiota to promote mucosal healing. Science (2020) 368(6487):186–9. doi: 10.1126/science.aau6481

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  LiangLLiuLZhouWYangCMaiGLiHet al. Gut microbiota-derived butyrate regulates gut mucus barrier repair by activating the macrophage/WNT/ERK signaling pathway. Clin Sci (Lond) (2022) 136(4):291–307. doi: 10.1042/CS20210778

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  ZouBLiuSLiXHeJDongCRuanMet al. Repeated and multiple fecal microbiota transplantations plus partial enteral nutrition as the first-line treatment in active pediatric Crohn's disease. Front Cell Infect Microbiol (2023) 13:1083236. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1083236

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  KundeSPhamABonczykSCrumbTDubaMConradHJret al. Safety, tolerability, and clinical response after fecal transplantation in children and young adults with ulcerative colitis. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr (2013) 56(6):597–601. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e318292fa0d

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  QueraREspinozaREstayCRiveraD. Bacteremia as an adverse event of fecal microbiota transplantation in a patient with Crohn's disease and recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. J Crohns Colitis (2014) 8(3):252–3. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2013.10.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  MarcellaCCuiBKellyCRIaniroGCammarotaGZhangF. Systematic review: the global incidence of faecal microbiota transplantation-related adverse events from 2000 to 2020. Aliment Pharmacol Ther (2021) 53(1):33–42. doi: 10.1111/apt.16148

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  LeeCLouieTBanckeLGuthmuellerBHarveyAFeuerstadtPet al. Safety of fecal microbiota, live-jslm (REBYOTA) in individuals with recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection: data from five prospective clinical trials. Therap Adv Gastroenterol (2023) 16:17562848231174277. doi: 10.1177/17562848231174277

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  JainNUmarTPFahnerAFGibietisV. Advancing therapeutics for recurrent clostridioides difficile infections: an overview of vowst's FDA approval and implications. Gut Microbes (2023) 15(1):2232137. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2023.2232137

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  ZhangZZhangHChenTShiLWangDTangD. Regulatory role of short-chain fatty acids in inflammatory bowel disease. Cell Commun Signal (2022) 20(1):64. doi: 10.1186/s12964-022-00869-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  Corrêa-OliveiraRFachiJLVieiraASatoFTVinoloMA. Regulation of immune cell function by short-chain fatty acids. Clin Transl Immunol (2016) 5(4):e73. doi: 10.1038/cti.2016.17

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  De PreterVArijsIWindeyKVanhoveWVermeireSSchuitFet al. Impaired butyrate oxidation in ulcerative colitis is due to decreased butyrate uptake and a defect in the oxidation pathway. Inflammation Bowel Dis (2012) 18(6):1127–36. doi: 10.1002/ibd.21894

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  ZhangDJianYPZhangYNLiYGuLTSunHHet al. Short-chain fatty acids in diseases. Cell Commun Signal (2023) 21(1):212. doi: 10.1186/s12964-023-01219-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  LaffinMFedorakRZalaskyAParkHGillAAgrawalAet al. A high-sugar diet rapidly enhances susceptibility to colitis via depletion of luminal short-chain fatty acids in mice. Sci Rep (2019) 9(1):12294. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-48749-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  FacchinSVituloNCalgaroMBudaARomualdiCPohlDet al. Microbiota changes induced by microencapsulated sodium butyrate in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Neurogastroenterol Motil (2020) 32(10):e13914. doi: 10.1111/nmo.13914

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  GelseKPöschlEAignerT. Collagens–structure, function, and biosynthesis. Adv Drug Delivery Rev (2003) 55(12):1531–46. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2003.08.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  ShimshoniEYablecovitchDBaramLDotanISagiI. ECM remodelling in IBD: innocent bystander or partner in crime? The emerging role of extracellular molecular events in sustaining intestinal inflammation. Gut (2015) 64(3):367–72. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308048

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  MortensenJHLindholmMLangholmLLKjeldsenJBay-JensenACKarsdalMAet al. The intestinal tissue homeostasis - the role of extracellular matrix remodeling in inflammatory bowel disease. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol (2019) 13(10):977–93. doi: 10.1080/17474124.2019.1673729

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  FrantzCStewartKMWeaverVM. The extracellular matrix at a glance. J Cell Sci (2010) 123(Pt 24):4195–200. doi: 10.1242/jcs.023820

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  StramerBMMoriRMartinP. The inflammation-fibrosis link? A Jekyll and Hyde role for blood cells during wound repair. J Invest Dermatol (2007) 127(5):1009–17. doi: 10.1038/sj.jid.5700811

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  PetreyACde la MotteCA. The extracellular matrix in IBD: a dynamic mediator of inflammation. Curr Opin Gastroenterol (2017) 33(4):234–8. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000368

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  LindholmMManon-JensenTMadsenGIKragAKarsdalMAKjeldsenJet al. Extracellular matrix fragments of the basement membrane and the interstitial matrix are serological markers of intestinal tissue remodeling and disease activity in dextran sulfate sodium colitis. Dig Dis Sci (2019) 64(11):3134–42. doi: 10.1007/s10620-019-05676-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  GökeMZukAPodolskyDK. Regulation and function of extracellular matrix intestinal epithelial restitution in vitro. Am J Physiol (1996) 271(5 Pt 1):G729–40. doi: 10.1152/ajpgi.1996.271.5.G729

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  StronatiLPaloneFNegroniAColantoniEMancusoABCucchiaraSet al. Dipotassium glycyrrhizate improves intestinal mucosal healing by modulating extracellular matrix remodeling genes and restoring epithelial barrier functions. Front Immunol (2019) 10:939. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.00939

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  DerkaczAOlczykPOlczykKKomosinska-VassevK. The role of extracellular matrix components in inflammatory bowel diseases. J Clin Med (2021) 10(5):1122. doi: 10.3390/jcm10051122

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  Ferdowsi KhosroshahiASoleimani RadJKheirjouRRoshangarBRashtbarMSalehiRet al. Adipose tissue-derived stem cells upon decellularized ovine small intestine submucosa for tissue regeneration: An optimization and comparison method. J Cell Physiol (2020) 235(2):1556–67. doi: 10.1002/jcp.29074

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  ChameettachalSVenugantiAParekhYPrasadDJoshiVPVashishthaAet al. Human cornea-derived extracellular matrix hydrogel for prevention of post-traumatic corneal scarring: A translational approach. Acta Biomater (2023) 171:289–307. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2023.09.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  NakamuraTSatoT. Advancing intestinal organoid technology toward regenerative medicine. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol (2017) 5(1):51–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2017.10.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  WuMYHillCS. Tgf-beta superfamily signaling in embryonic development and homeostasis. Dev Cell (2009) 16:329–43. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2009.02.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  Di SabatinoAPickardKMRamptonDKruidenierLRovedattiLLeakeyNAet al. Blockade of transforming growth factor beta upregulates T-box transcription factor T-bet, and increases T helper cell type 1 cytokine and matrix metalloproteinase-3 production in the human gut mucosa. Gut (2008) 57(5):605–12. doi: 10.1136/gut.2007.130922

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  MonteleoneGKumberovaACroftNMMcKenzieCSteerHWMacDonaldTT. Blocking Smad7 restores TGF-beta1 signaling in chronic inflammatory bowel disease. J Clin Invest (2001) 108(4):601–9. doi: 10.1172/JCI12821

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  Ben-LuluSPollakYMogilnerJBejarJG CoranASukhotnikI. Dietary transforming growth factor-beta 2 (TGF-β2) supplementation reduces methotrexate-induced intestinal mucosal injury in a rat. PloS One (2012) 7(9):e45221. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045221

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  di MolaFFFriessHScheurenADi SebastianoPGraberHEggerBet al. Transforming growth factor-betas and their signaling receptors are coexpressed in Crohn's disease. Ann Surg (1999) 229(1):67–75. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199901000-00009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  MonteleoneGNeurathMFArdizzoneSDi SabatinoAFantiniMCCastiglioneFet al. Mongersen, an oral SMAD7 antisense oligonucleotide, and Crohn's disease. N Engl J Med (2015) 372(12):1104–13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1407250

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  MonteleoneGDi SabatinoAArdizzoneSPalloneFUsiskinKZhanXet al. Impact of patient characteristics on the clinical efficacy of mongersen (GED-0301), an oral Smad7 antisense oligonucleotide, in active Crohn's disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther (2016) 43(6):717–24. doi: 10.1111/apt.13526

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  SandsBEFeaganBGSandbornWJSchreiberSPeyrin-BirouletLFrédéric ColombelJet al. Mongersen (GED-0301) for active Crohn's disease: results of a phase 3 study. Am J Gastroenterol (2020) 115(5):738–45. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000493

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  MonteleoneGStolfiCMarafiniIAtreyaRNeurathMF. Smad7 antisense oligonucleotide-based therapy in Crohn's disease: is it time to re-evaluate? Mol Diagn Ther (2022) 26(5):477–81. doi: 10.1007/s40291-022-00606-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  SchulerCFotiFPerrenLMamieCWederBStokmaierMet al. Deletion of Smad7 ameliorates intestinal inflammation and contributes to fibrosis. Inflammation Bowel Dis (2023) 29(4):647–60. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izac221

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  AamannLVestergaardEMGrønbækH. Trefoil factors in inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol (2014) 20(12):3223–30. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i12.3223

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  AiharaEEngevikKAMontroseMH. Trefoil factor peptides and gastrointestinal function. Annu Rev Physiol (2017) 79:357–80. doi: 10.1146/annurev-physiol-021115-105447

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  SunZLiuHYangZShaoDZhangWRenYet al. Intestinal trefoil factor activates the PI3K/Akt signaling pathway to protect gastric mucosal epithelium from damage. Int J Oncol (2014) 45(3):1123–32. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2014.2527

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  TengXYangYLiuLYangLWuJSunMet al. Evaluation of inflammatory bowel disease activity in children using serum trefoil factor peptide. Pediatr Res (2020) 88(5):792–5. doi: 10.1038/s41390-020-0812-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  KjellevSThimLPykeCPoulsenSS. Cellular localization, binding sites, and pharmacologic effects of TFF3 in experimental colitis in mice. Dig Dis Sci (2007) 52(4):1050–9. doi: 10.1007/s10620-006-9256-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  PoulsenSSKissowHHareKHartmannBThimL. Luminal and parenteral TFF2 and TFF3 dimer and monomer in two models of experimental colitis in the rat. Regul Pept (2005) 126(3):163–71. doi: 10.1016/j.regpep.2004.09.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  BabyatskyMWdeBeaumontMThimLPodolskyDK. Oral trefoil peptides protect against ethanol- and indomethacin-induced gastric injury in rats. Gastroenterology (1996) 110(2):489–97. doi: 10.1053/gast.1996.v110.pm8566596

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  SunYZhuYWangLMaoXPengXPengY. Recombinant adenovirus-mediated intestinal trefoil factor gene therapy for burn-induced intestinal mucosal injury. PLoS One (2013) 8(4):e62429. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062429

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar