The role of microbiota in the development and treatment of gastric cancer

Abstract

The stomach was once considered a sterile organ until the discovery of Helicobacter pylori (HP). With the application of high-throughput sequencing technology and macrogenomics, researchers have identified fungi and fivemajor bacterial phyla within the stomachs of healthy individuals. These microbial communities exert regulatory influence over various physiological functions, including energy metabolism and immune responses. HP is a well-recognized risk factor for gastric cancer, significantly altering the stomach’s native microecology. Currently, numerous studies are centered on the mechanisms by which HP contributes to gastric cancer development, primarily involving the CagA oncoprotein. However, aside from exogenous infections such as HP and EBV, certain endogenous dysbiosis can also lead to gastric cancer through multiple mechanisms. Additionally, gut microbiota and its metabolites significantly impact the development of gastric cancer. The role of microbial therapies, including diet, phages, probiotics and fecal microbiota transplantation, in treating gastric cancer should not be underestimated. This review aims to study the mechanisms involved in the roles of exogenous pathogen infection and endogenous microbiota dysbiosis in the development of gastric cancer. Also, we describe the application of microbiota therapy in the treatment and prognosis of gastric cancer.

Introduction

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide (1). Gastric cancer rarely detects in its early stage, and the lack of effective biomarkers can accurately diagnose early gastric cancer and monitor prognosis during the adjuvant stage, which results in higher mortality rates, with only one in five patients surviving more than five years after being diagnosed with gastric cancer (2). Consequently, the development of more accurate and accessible biomarkers is necessary to aid in the early-stage diagnosis of gastric cancer and to monitor relapse.

The microbiota in the human body comprises viruses, fungi and bacteria. High-fat diets, antibiotics, exogenous microbial infections and host genetics can lead to dysbiosis (3–5). The definition of dysbiosis is a change in the composition and function of the microbiota (5). A healthy and stable microbiota inhibits cancer development, whereas a dysbiotic microbiota has a limited protective effect on the host and promotes cancer development. Gastric cancer is the result of the interaction between the dysbiosis of the gastric microbiota and the host gastric epithelial cells (6). Moreover, as gastric cancer progresses, damage to the gastric mucosal barrier and persistent chronic inflammation will further promote dysbiosis (7).

Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection is one of the riskiest factors for gastric cancer (8). The majority of intestinal-type gastric cancers are associated with HP. HP infection accelerates the progression from atrophic gastritis (AG) to intestinal metaplasia (IM) and eventually to gastric cancer. Furthermore, individuals with HP infection have a 3-6 fold higher risk of developing gastric cancer than those without HP infection (2, 9). In recent years, viruses such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), Hepatitis B virus (HBV), and John Cunningham virus (JCV) have also attracted attention for their role in gastric cancer carcinogenesis. In addition to exogenous pathogen infections, some dysbiotic endogenous microbiota such as Lactobacillus, F. nucleatum, and Candida albicans can also be involved in developing gastric cancer through various mechanisms. Metabolites from the gut microbiota influence gastric cancer progression and improve anticancer therapy for gastric cancer patients. Microbiota therapy will be an essential target for future cancer treatment. In this review, the direct and indirect mechanisms by which exogenous infections and endogenous dysbiosis contribute to gastric cancer development are examined first. Next, the effects of oral and gut microbiota on gastric cancer are explored. Finally, the application of microbiota therapy in treating gastric cancer, including diet, bacteriophages, probiotics, and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), is discussed. Our goal is to investigate the impact of microbiota on gastric cancer, which could provide new insights for early screening and subsequent treatment of gastric cancer.

Gastric microbiota

Composition of the gastric microbiota in healthy individuals

Due to its high acidity, the stomach was once regarded as a sterile organ and unsuitable for microbial colonization. However, the discovery of HP led to the realization that some microbes could indeed colonize the stomach (2). Advancements in high-throughput sequencing technologies in microbiology have facilitated the discovery of an increasing number of exogenous and endogenous microbiota. The normal human stomach harbors a diverse microbiota, with over 130 lineages representing 7 to 13 bacterial phyla, of which 5 are the most dominant, including Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria, and Fusobacteria (10, 11). Fungi, a common yet easily overlooked component of gastric microbiota, have also been identified. Investigations of the gastric environment in healthy individuals, patients with chronic gastritis (CG), and gastric ulcers have detected hundreds of fungal strains in the stomach. Fungi may possess an effective acid tolerance mechanism, enabling them to proliferate more efficiently in a gastric environment with a pH of only 1.4 compared to bacteria. Researchers have detected fungal species, such as Candida tropicales and Candida lusitanae, in addition to the most common Candida albicans. Fungi usually colonize areas like the gastric mucosa and stomach contents (12, 13).

Both bacteria and fungi in the human stomach play crucial roles in various physiological activities, including energy metabolism, nutrient absorption, immune response, and nervous system regulation (14). However, some studies have observed differences in the flora of the gastric mucosa and gastric juice (8, 10, 11, 15, 16). Due to swallowing in the oral cavity and reflux in the duodenum, the gastric juice may contain more bacteria than the gastric mucosa (17). Although most current gastric flora studies have sampled the gastric mucosa, bacteria in the gastric juice should not be overlooked. These bacteria can contribute to the proper functioning of the gastrointestinal system but may also cause some adverse reactions.

Composition of the gastric microbiota in gastric cancer patients

The results are diverse for changes in the diversity and abundance of microbiota in gastric cancer. Some studies showed that the abundance and diversity of the gastric microbiota did not change gradually with the development of gastric cancer (18, 19). Other studies have taken the opposite view, suggesting that the abundance and diversity of the microbiota decrease as gastric cancer progresses, which is what most studies have concluded (20–22). Another study has shown a significant increase in the abundance and diversity of the microbiota in cancerous tissues compared to paracancerous tissues. They also found that oral bacteria (such as Peptostreptococcus, Streptococcus, and Fusobacterium) dominated the cancerous tissues, and lactic acid-producing bacteria (such as Lactococcus lactis and Lactobacillus brevis) were enriched in the paracancerous tissues (23). However, Liu et al. found that Prevotella melanogenic, Streptococcus anginosus and Propionibacterium acnes were enriched in cancerous tissues compared to normal and paracancerous tissues. In contrast, the abundance of HP, Prevotella copri and Bacteroides uniformis was significantly reduced in cancerous tissues (24).

Many current studies exist on the microbiota of gastric cancer patients and controls. However, their results varied widely, and some were even contradictory, possibly due to different sample types, study populations, sequencing technologies and analysis methods (Table 1). However, it is undeniable that there is a significant difference in the microbial composition of gastric cancer patients compared to controls. In general, the microbiota of gastric cancer patients shows a decreased abundance of HP, a significant enrichment of the oral bacteria, and reduced diversity and abundance of the microbiota.

Effect of HP-positive and HP-negative gastric cancer on the gastric microbiota

HP is a gram-negative bacterium that parasitizes the human stomach. The colonization of HP can lead to dysbiosis. The diversity and abundance of the gastric microbiota decrease after infection with HP (27). HP-positive gastric cancers demonstrate an abundance of Lactobacillus, Achromobacter, Citrobacter, Clostridium, and Rhodococcus but lack HP and Neisseria compared to other gastric diseases (26). A recent meta-analysis suggests that eradicating HP can restore the diversity of the gastric microbiota and reduce the risk of gastric cancer (28). However, some studies contradict this result by suggesting that eradicating HP does not entirely prevent the development of gastric cancer, which indicates that other microorganisms in the stomach besides HP are also associated with gastric cancer carcinogenesis (29). Lertpiriyapong et al. demonstrated this hypothesis with INS-GAS mice. They found that HP mice colonized by complex or restricted microbiota were more susceptible to HP-induced gastric cancer than germ-free mice (30). This result suggests that after HP infection of the gastric epithelium causes dysbiosis, HP acts synergistically with the dysbiotic microbiota to promote gastric carcinogenesis.

Although HP is recognized as a type 1 carcinogen by the World Health Organization (WHO), not all gastric cancers are caused by HP infection. HP-negative gastric cancers also account for a percentage ranging from 0.7% to 47.8% of gastric cancer patients (31). The role of microbiota in the development of HP-negative gastric cancer has attracted increasing attention. In HP-negative gastric cancer, Kim et al. found there was a significant increase in the abundance and diversity of Lactobacillaceae, Streptococcaceae, and Prevotellaceae and a decrease in the numbers of Burkholderiaceae, Haemophilus, and Campylobacter (32) (Figure 1). These findings are inconsistent in related studies, but the increased abundance of Lactobacillaceae was detected in almost all patients with gastric cancer. Lactobacillaceae is a nitrosating bacterium, and Haemophilus is a nitrate-reducing bacterium. An increase in the abundance of Lactobacillaceae and a decrease in the abundance of Haemophilus can increase the formation of N-nitroso compounds, which can cause persistent inflammation and promote the development of gastric cancer (32). Ding et al. also concluded that HP-negative gastric cancer occurs due to disruption of the normal microbiota, with elevated levels of some bacteria with pro-cancer activity and decreased levels of cancer-suppressing bacteria (33). In other words, it is not a certain kind of bacteria that causes gastric cancer alone. Instead, the microbiota in the stomach undergoes dysbiosis, and the various dysbiotic microbiota work together to participate in the development of gastric cancer.

Figure 1

Gastric carcinogenesis

Numerous studies have found a connection between the development of gastric cancer and exogenous infections, such as HP and EBV, as well as endogenous dysbiosis. A shared mechanism among these factors is the induction of chronic inflammation, which heightens the risk of cancer (34). Chronic inflammation is vital in all three stages of gastric cancer development, from AG to IM and finally to gastric cancer. Chronic inflammation leads to the accumulation of mutations and the destabilization of the host genome by accelerating DNA replication rates and diminishing DNA damage repair capabilities. The result is pro-oncogenes’ activation and tumor suppressor genes’ (TSG) inactivation, ultimately leading to gastric cancer development (35).

Exogenous pathogens

HP and its potential mechanism in gastric carcinogenesis

HP, a representative exogenous bacteria in the stomach’s microecology, can be transmitted through saliva, vomit, and feces. The carcinogenic mechanism of HP is closely linked to its virulence factors, which include cytotoxin-associated gene A (CagA), vesicular cytotoxin A (VacA), neutrophil-activating protein (NAP) and outer membrane proteins (OMPs) (3) (Table 2). These factors damage DNA in gastric epithelial cells and cause the destabilization of the host genome.

CagA, an oncoprotein, interacts with various signaling pathways upon entering the cytoplasm of gastric epithelial cells, disrupts intercellular junctions, and activates pro-inflammatory and oncogenic signaling pathways. This process leads to sustained inflammatory responses and uncontrollable cell proliferation. CagA can be transfected into the cytoplasm of gastric epithelial cells via the type 4 secretion system (T4SS) encoded by the Cag pathogenicity island (CagPAI) (2). CagA can regulate signal transduction through both phosphorylated and non-phosphorylated pathways. Phosphorylated CagA can directly bind or recruit the phosphatase SHP2 to activate the MAPK/ERK pathway. SHP2 is a key protein in CagA pathogenesis and can regulate ERK signaling in a non-Ras-dependent manner (36). Non-phosphorylated CagA, when combined with E-cadherin, decreases E-cadherin expression and promotes epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), accelerating gastric cancer progression (37).

VacA possesses selective anion channel properties that facilitate the release of bicarbonate and organic anions into the cytoplasm, contributing to HP colonization in gastric epithelial cells and leading to apoptosis (36). Moreover, HP infection can induce gastric carcinogenesis through hypermethylation silencing of multiple TSGs, such as miR-124a-1, miR-124a-2, and miR-124a-3 (60). Abnormal alterations in the methylation levels of the CpG island of TSG promoters following HP infection affect the transcription of downstream genes, causing irreversible TSG inactivation (61).

NAP is the main pro-inflammatory factor in HP infection. The protein was initially named for its ability to activate neutrophils to produce Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) and promote neutrophils’ adhesion to gastric epithelial cells (62). In addition to neutrophils, NAP activates monocytes and mast cells to release a variety of pro-inflammatory chemokines such as IL-8, IL-6, TNF-α, MIP-1α, MIP-1β, and β-hexosaminidase (63). The release of these factors causes damage to the gastric mucosa and accelerates the process of chronic gastritis. In addition, NAP has been found to play an essential role in bacterial protection. NAP is a DNA-binding protein belonging to the Dps family and has structural similarity to bacterial ferritin. Therefore, NAP can isolate free iron and bind DNA, which can protect HP DNA from oxidative damage and promote the growth and colonization of HP (40).

The most studied adhesins among HP outer membrane proteins are blood group antigen-binding adhesin (BabA) and sialic acid-binding adhesion (SabA). They can bind to receptors on the surface of gastric epithelial cells, and this binding contributes to HP adhesion and colonization, increases HP pathogenicity, and promotes persistent infection (64). BabA binds to Leb and enhances CagA translocation by promoting T4SS activity. CagA induces the production of massive pro-inflammatory factors, leading to IM and precancerous lesions (49). SabA binds to the sialyl-Lex antigen and promotes neutrophil activation and infiltration, inducing oxidative damage and causing a persistent inflammatory response (51). The expression of BabA and SabA is closely associated with the development and prognosis of various gastrointestinal diseases, such as chronic gastritis and gastric cancer (50, 65). Therefore, they may be potential targets for preventing and treating HP-related diseases.

Additionally, HP infection may significantly diminish the effectiveness of immunotherapy for gastric cancer. Firstly, HP can decrease the activity of CD4+ T cells, dendritic cells (DCs), macrophages, and NKT cells, while also increasing the activity of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and regulatory T cells (Treg cells) (66). Secondly, HP elevates the expression of PD-L1 in gastric epithelial cells and induces CD4+T cell apoptosis (67) (Figure 2). This finding implies that HP infection leads to non-specific suppression of T cells and reduced immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) efficacy. Finally, Oster et al. discovered that HP infection could reduce the effectiveness of anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-L1 therapy, decrease the potency of cancer vaccines, and inhibit in situ tumor immunotherapy (66, 68).

Figure 2

EBV and its potential mechanism in gastric carcinogenesis

EBV, first isolated from Burkitt’s lymphoma cell line in 1964, was among the initial viruses identified to be linked to human malignancy. EBV infection also elevates the risk of developing gastric cancer by more than 18-fold, with EBV-associated gastric cancer constituting approximately 10% of all gastric cancers (69, 70).

Following EBV infection, viral genes such as EBERs, EBNA-1, and BARTs are expressed and can interact with host proteins to promote cell proliferation and inhibit apoptosis. The DNA damage and cell proliferation resulting from this process contribute to gastric cancer development. Additionally, EBV can disrupt the host’s epigenetic machinery and induce malignant transformation of the epigenome. EBV upregulates host DNA Methyltransferases (DNMTs) through the expression of Latent Membrane Protein 1 (LMP1) and Latent Membrane Protein 2A (LMP2A) viral oncoproteins (13, 71). Consequently, most EBV-associated gastric cancers exhibit CpG island hypermethylation at TSGs, such as PTEN, leading to the inactivation of TSGs and immune escape. Plasma EBV DNA load is a valid marker for assessing the efficacy and prognosis of EBV-associated gastric cancers (72). It has been discovered that EBV and HP may synergistically impact the development of gastric cancer. HP-positive patients have a higher EBV DNA load. EBV infection can enhance the oncogenic potential of CagA. Gastric cancers co-infected with EBV and HP display numerous methylated genes. EBV and HP can synergistically promote chronic inflammation and increase tissue damage during the early stages of the gastric carcinogenesis process (2, 73). Immunotherapy is typically employed to treat patients with EBV-associated gastric cancer because EBV subtypes are positively associated with PD-L1 overexpression (35). Su et al. observed an increased cellular immune response and cytotoxicity in EBV-associated gastric cancer xenograft model mice through CRISPR/Cas9 system-mediated disruption of PD-1 on T cells (74).

Several studies have suggested that other viruses, such as JCV and HBV, may also play a crucial role in gastric cancer development (75). The oncogenic effect of JCV is primarily achieved through its encoded oncoprotein T-Ag. T-Ag can interact with tumor suppressor proteins like p53 and pRB and participate in gastric carcinogenesis through critical signaling pathways, such as Wnt/β-Catenin (76). HBV infection results in a 1.29-fold increased risk of gastric cancer, with the hepatitis B virus X protein (HBx) potentially playing a vital role in this process (77). Cui et al. discovered that HBV could induce gastric epithelial cell carcinogenesis through HBx (78). Moreover, chronic inflammation caused by HBV infection heightens the risk of gastric carcinogenesis (79).

Endogenous dysbiosis

Lactobacillus and its potential mechanism in gastric carcinogenesis

Although Lactobacillus is widely regarded as a probiotic in the intestine, it is often abundantly enriched in gastric cancer, particularly in advanced gastric cancer (32, 80). Several factors contribute to Lactobacillus causing gastric cancer. First, lactate, produced by Lactobacillus, plays a massive role in the Warburg effect of tumors (81). Second, Lactobacillus can upregulate pro-inflammatory genes, such as Ptger4 and Tgf-β, and oncogenic genes, such as Nos2, Tnf-α, Cxcl1 (Kc), and Ccl2 (Mcp-1) to induce gastric carcinogenesis (30). Third, Lactobacillus can reduce nitrate to nitrites and eventually form nitrosamines (82). Furthermore, Lactobacillus is a potent ROS inducer, leading to DNA damage (83). Lastly, Lactobacillus can convert human fibroblasts into multipotent cells, directly promoting gastric cancer development (84). These factors may jointly contribute to gastric cancer development, but the exact mechanism requires further investigation.

F. nucleatum and its potential mechanism in gastric carcinogenesis

Fusobacterium nucleatum (F. nucleatum) is most widely known for its carcinogenic effect on colorectal cancer. However, in recent years, F. nucleatum has also been recognized as a significant cause of gastric cancer development. F. nucleatum is more abundant in gastric cancer than normal tissues, and F. nucleatum positivity is associated with a worse prognosis and shorter overall survival in patients with diffuse-type gastric cancer (85, 86). F. nucleatum binds to E-cadherin in gastric epithelial cells via the characteristic virulence factor FadA, increasing endothelial permeability, promoting self-colonization, propagation, and immune escape (87), and activating the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway to enhance tumor cell proliferation (88). Familial adenomatous polyposis 2 (Fap2) is another virulence factor of F. nucleatum. Fap2, through binding and interaction with T cell immunoreceptors with IG and ITIM domains (TIGIT), can inhibit the killing of NK cells and lymphocytes to tumors, thereby protecting tumors and promoting the formation of an inflammatory microenvironment (89, 90). F. nucleatum also produces an induced inflammatory response through NF-κB-mediated cytokines such as IL-6, IL-1β, IL-17, IFN-γ, and TNF-α (87, 91).

Candida albicans and its potential mechanism in gastric carcinogenesis

Zhong et al. conducted ITS rDNA gene analysis on cancerous and non-cancerous tissues from 45 gastric cancer patients and discovered an imbalance of fungal communities in gastric cancer. After statistical analysis, they determined that Candida albicans were abundantly enriched in gastric cancer. Ultimately, it was demonstrated that Candida albicans could serve as a fungal biomarker for diagnosing gastric cancer. Candida albicans may promote gastric cancer development by reducing the diversity and abundance of fungi in the stomach, such as Candida glabrata, Aspergillus montevidensis, Saitozyma podzolica, and Penicillium arenicola (92).

Candida albicans may possess multiple carcinogenic mechanisms, including damage to mucosal epithelial cells, induction of chronic inflammation, and production of carcinogens leading to cancer.

Upon invasion of the mucosal epithelium, Candida albicans cause apoptosis and necrosis, which disrupts the immune barrier of the epithelium and leads to structural changes in the epithelium (93). Long-term colonization and infestation of Candida albicans in the mucosal epithelium can cause chronic inflammation. During this process, the expression of the inflammatory factor prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) increases. PGE2 downregulates macrophage cytokines, inhibits DC and NK cell activity and function, blocks cytotoxic T cell activation, and promotes maturation and suppressive activity of Treg cells, thereby suppressing tumor immunity. PGE2 aids in the migration of MDSCs to the tumor microenvironment, proliferation of malignant cells, and inhibition of apoptosis, directly promoting tumor progression. PGE2 can also promote tumorigenesis through ROS production, activation of oncogenic transcription factors, and promotion of angiogenesis (94).

Candida albicans-produced nitrosamines and acetaldehyde can contribute to cancer development to some extent. Acetaldehyde impacts DNA replication and can cause point mutations of genes and chromosomal abnormalities. Meanwhile, acetaldehyde interferes with enzymes involved in cytosine methylation and DNA damage repair, resulting in proto-oncogene activation and cell cycle abnormalities, thereby promoting cancer development. Additionally, acetaldehyde can cause mitochondrial damage and induce apoptosis (93).

In conclusion, Candida albicans dysbiosis can increase the likelihood of cancer occurrence and promote cancer progression.

Microbiota from other habitats and gastric cancer

Oral microbiota and gastric cancer

The oral and gastric environments are linked through swallowed saliva and ingested food. The oral microbiota is a major source of gastric microbiota (95). Many studies have found that dysbiosis of the oral microbiota is associated with gastric carcinogenesis. Oral bacteria such as Parvimonas, Eikenella and Prevotella-2 were significantly enriched in gastric cancer compared to other precancerous stages (18). The abundance of oral bacteria such as Peptostreptococcus, Streptococcus, and Fusobacterium was higher in cancerous tissues than in paracancerous tissues (23). Network analysis revealed that oral microorganisms such as Peptostreptococcus stomatitis, Slackia exigua, Parvimonas micra, Streptococcus anginosus, and Dialister pneumosintes might play critical roles in the development of gastric cancer (25). Under normal conditions, most of the oral microbiota entering the stomach is either destroyed by gastric acid or protected by the mucus-bicarbonate barrier from invading the gastric epithelium. However, certain disease states, such as gastric ulcers and gastric cancer, can damage the gastric mucosa and neutralize gastric acid, allowing oral bacteria to colonize the gastric mucosa from gastric juices (17). Recently, some studies have also been on the interaction between oral microbiota and HP. On the one hand, HP infection can disrupt the homeostasis of the oral microbiota (96). On the other hand, ectopic colonization on the gastric mucosa by the oral microbiota may, in turn, be necessary for HP-induced ecological dysbiosis (95).

Gut microbiota and gastric cancer

Since the pH in the intestine is more conducive to microbial colonization, intestinal bacteria are nearly 10⁷ times more abundant than those in the stomach (16, 97). Approximately 99% of the 10¹⁴ microorganisms that comprise the human microbiome reside in the intestine (98). Numerous studies have demonstrated that intestinal flora can directly and indirectly affect the development, treatment, and prognosis of gastric cancer.

In a study conducted in Shanxi province, researchers investigated changes in the gut microbiota of 116 patients with gastric cancer and 88 healthy controls. They observed an increase in the abundance of intestinal flora, a decrease in butyrate-producing bacteria, and a significant enrichment of Lactobacillus, Escherichia, and Klebsiella in patients with gastric cancer (99). According to Sarhadi et al., Enterobacteriaceae were abundant in stool samples from patients with all types of gastric cancer (100). Enterobacteriaceae may serve as a potential biomarker in the diagnosis of gastric cancer.

Certain metabolites of intestinal bacteria, such as acetic acid and butyrate, also influence the development of gastric cancer. Acetic acid and butyrate are the major short-chain fatty acids, and intestinal bacteria such as Eubacterium, Clostridium, Ruminococcus, and Coprococcus can produce butyrate (35). Increasingly, research has found that butyrate plays a crucial role in inhibiting gastric cancer development. First, butyrate inhibits the Warburg effect of gastric cancer by binding pyruvate kinase M2 (PKM2), increasing the content of glucose intermediates in mitochondria, preventing the conversion of tricarboxylic acid cycle intermediates to ATP, and ultimately depriving tumor growth of sufficient energy, thus inhibiting gastric cancer development. Second, butyrate can directly interfere with the mitochondria of gastric cancer cells, upregulate oxidative stress, and significantly increase the level of ROS. Moreover, butyrate can promote caspase 9 production and inhibit BCL-2 synthesis, leading to the apoptosis of gastric cancer cells (101). Lastly, a recent study discovered that butyrate could inhibit the growth, migration, and invasion of gastric cancer cells and aerobic glycolysis by blocking the Wnt/β-catenin/c-Myc signaling pathway (102).

Microbiota modification and immunotherapy for gastric cancer

Alterations in the microbiota may directly impact gastric cancer immunotherapy (103, 104). Matson et al. discovered that higher proportions of Bifidobacterium longum, Collinsella aerofaciens, and Enterococcus faecium led to more effective anti-PD-L1 therapy (105). A meta-analysis revealed that Bacteroides caccae was enriched in all types of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies. Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Bacteroides thetaiotamicron, and Holdemania filiformis were enriched in responders to anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 ICIs treatments (106). Based on these findings, researchers have proposed microbiota modification as a means to enhance the efficacy of immunotherapy for gastric cancer. Current approaches to microbiota modification include the use of probiotics and FMT.

Probiotics

Probiotics, such as Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus, and Saccharomyces, are active microbes that benefit the host’s health (107, 108). There is growing evidence that probiotics may inhibit the growth of gastric cancer to some extent. Probiotics can significantly reduce inflammatory responses, enhance the immune system, promote tumor cell apoptosis, restore gut microbiota homeostasis, and inhibit cancer signaling pathways (35, 109, 110). Lactobacillus can inhibit the development of gastric cancer by reducing the expression of NF-κB and the phosphorylation of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway (111). Bifidobacterium can directly induce DC maturation and cytokine (IFNγ, TNFα, IL-10, IL-17) production, thus promoting anti-tumor immunity and anti-PD-L1 efficacy and almost inhibiting tumor progression after combination therapy with PD-L1 monoclonal antibody (mAb) (104). Bacteroides thetaotaomicron and Bacteroides fragilis (B. fragilis) are also potential probiotics. Vétizou et al. found that the antitumor and immunotherapeutic effects of CTLA-4 blockade were associated with Bacteroides thetaotaomicron and B. fragilis. Oral administration of Bacteroides thetaotaomicron or B. fragilis to germ-free mice enhances the antitumor effects of CTLA-4 blockers (112). B. fragilis also increase macrophage phagocytosis, prompting them to polarize towards an M1 phenotype (113).

Probiotics have become a prominent research topic due to their beneficial effects on gastric cancer. Immunotherapeutic probiotics could be developed to improve the efficacy of immunotherapy (114). However, contrary to the aforementioned findings, it is relatively easy to identify inconsistencies. The role of Lactobacillus in gastric cancer remains unclear. In addition to Lactobacillus, there are inconsistent findings on the effects of other probiotics on gastric cancer. Based on human microbiome studies and animal models, researchers have cautioned against the direct use of Lactobacillus in treating patients with gastric cancer (81).

FMT

FMT is transplanting fecal material from a healthy donor into a recipient’s intestine, ultimately altering the recipient’s intestinal flora to match the donor’s microbial profile (115). Several methods of fecal microbiota transplantation exist, including oral, nasal, and rectal administration. Rectal administration is preferred, as nasal administration may cause pulmonary or gastrointestinal complications, and although oral administration is convenient, careful avoidance of first-pass effects is necessary (116, 117). Given FMT’s numerous benefits, there is growing interest in its potential for enhancing cancer immunotherapy.

Routy et al. discovered that the aberrant composition of intestinal flora results in primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with late-stage cancer and that antibiotics interfere with the therapeutic efficacy of ICIs in patients. Their findings revealed that the anti-tumor effects of PD-1 inhibitors are more effective in germ-free mice or those not treated with antibiotics after FMT from cancer patients who respond to ICIs. However, this was not the case in the FMT of patients who did not respond to ICIs. They also analyzed the metagenomics of fecal material from patients and found a correlation between the efficacy of ICIs and the abundance of Akkermansia muciniphila (A. muciniphila). After FMT, patients who did not respond were given A. muciniphila can restore the efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors (103). Fecal material from immunotherapy responders was transplanted into germ-free mice, resulting in slower tumor growth and increased immunotherapy efficacy (105). In summary, FMT can enhance patient responses to immunotherapy.

Since FMT has a more substantial impact on intestinal flora than gastric flora, most current research focuses on the effect of FMT on intestinal diseases. However, researchers should also consider FMT as a treatment for gastric cancer and precancerous lesions in the stomach. As a safe and effective therapy, FMT may treat gastric cancer in the future by interfering with the composition of the intestinal flora. However, we need further studies to evaluate FMT’s safety and reduce the risk of side effects.

Other interventions and therapeutic strategies for gastric cancer treatment

In addition to the FMT and probiotics mentioned above, many potential microbial interventions have been used to treat gastric cancer, including diet, prebiotic, and bacteriophage-based strategies, all pointing to the promising future of microbial therapies.

Bacteriophage-based strategies

Bacteriophages are viruses that selectively infect bacteria (118) and are more than 100 times more abundant in the gut than in bacteria and human cells (119). Given that most bacteriophages are particular to specific pathogenic bacteria but do not disrupt the homeostasis of normal flora (120), many studies have constructed bacteriophage-based biotic–abiotic hybrid nanosystems to accurately remove tumor microorganisms (121).

In order to precisely regulate intestinal flora to treat colorectal cancer, Zheng et al. loaded irinotecan inside dextran nanoparticles (122). And through bioorthogonal reaction, it was covalently linked with azide-modified phages that could specifically lyse F. nucleatum, which could not only effectively inhibit the proliferation of F. nucleatum, but also reduce the toxic side effects caused by the non-targeted release of conventional chemotherapeutic drugs. Moreover, phages can also remodel TME. F. nucleatum selectively amplifies MDSCs, thereby blocking the body’s anti-tumor immune response. Through phage display technology, Dong et al. screened M13 phage that can specifically bind F. nucleatum (123). They further assembled silver nanoparticles on the surface capsid protein of the M13 phage (M13@Ag). Subsequently, it was also demonstrated that M13@Ag could specifically clear F. nucleatum and inhibit the proliferation of MDSCs, reversing the immunosuppressive TME. In addition, the M13 phage utilizes its coat protein to activate antigen-presenting cells, which further activates the host immune response and inhibits CRC. Animal experiments demonstrated that M13@Ag combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors or chemotherapeutic agents significantly prolonged the survival of CRC mice. A recent study on phage strategies targeting HP may open new avenues for treating HP-positive gastric cancer (124).

Diet and prebiotic strategies

Diet has an important influence on the composition of the gut microbiota. Different dietary habits can lead to differences in the composition of the gut microbiota (125). Compared to omnivores, the intestinal flora of strict vegetarians was characterized by a higher abundance of Bacteroidetes and a lower abundance of Firmicutes (126). However, the opposite alteration of the intestine flora was observed in people on chronic high-fat diets (127). Therefore, the composition of the intestinal flora can be adjusted by dietary interventions, thereby creating a more favourable microecological environment for the host. Dietary interventions such as fasting and calorie restriction have been used in clinical trials for various cancers, and the results have shown that dietary interventions can alter the systemic metabolism of cancer patients, improve anti-tumor immunity (128), and inhibit tumor growth. For example, in an ongoing clinical trial (NCT01642953), researchers restrict patients’ diets after gastric cancer surgery to assess whether fasting promotes recovery and reduces mortality and adverse events (129). Dietary interventions can also inhibit inflammation, improve anti-cancer immune surveillance (130) and prevent chemotherapy-induced toxic side effects (131).

WHO defines the concept of prebiotics as “an inactive food ingredient that promotes the health of the organism by modulating the composition of the microbiota (107).” Common prebiotics are fructooligosaccharides (FOS), galactooligosaccharides (GOS) and inulin (132). Prebiotics can help the body resist pathogenic infections, maintain stable gastrointestinal function, promote the production of short-chain fatty acids by beneficial bacteria, regulate immunity and energy metabolism, and increase the absorption of micronutrients, thus improving the efficacy of cancer treatment (132–134). To demonstrate the role of prebiotics in cancer treatment, many preclinical studies and clinical trials are underway or have been completed. One clinical trial in the United States (NCT04682665) is investigating eicosapentaenoic acid’s role in treating liver metastases from colorectal cancer (135). Furthermore, It has been shown that a high intake of Ganoderma spp (136). Polysaccharides and raffinose (137) potentially reduce the risk of gastric cancer, but more extensive independent studies and clinical trials are needed to confirm this.

Conclusions and perspective

The microbiota has dual effects on gastric cancer. On the one hand, pathogenic bacterial infections and dysbiosis can promote the development of gastric cancer and is detrimental to the treatment and prognosis of gastric cancer. On the other hand, microbial therapies that optimize the microbiota through dietary changes, the use of bacteriophages and probiotics, and even transplantation of the fecal microbiota hold promise as potential treatments for gastric cancer. Furthermore, specific microorganisms and metabolites in gastric and intestinal flora could potentially serve as markers for diagnosing and monitoring the prognosis of gastric cancer, thereby improving early detection and treatment. Studying the microbiota helps us further understand the mechanisms of gastric cancer development and may provide new ideas for targeting microbiota interventions to treat cancer. However, there are still some problems in the current research on the microbiota of gastric cancer. Firstly, the mechanism by which some microbes promote gastric cancer has not been conclusively demonstrated and requires further investigation. Second, due to the differences in sequencing technology, analysis method or study population, the results obtained by many studies are quite different, and the interference of these factors should be excluded as far as possible. Third, there is currently a lack of more definitive biomarkers for gastric cancer other than prevention or eradication of HP infection, which hinders the early diagnosis of gastric cancer. In the future, more convenient and efficient biomarkers should be explored in larger sample sizes. In conclusion, further exploration is needed to modify the microbiota and ultimately improve the prognosis and effectiveness of gastric cancer treatment.

References

• 1

  SmythECNilssonMGrabschHIvan GriekenNCLordickF. Gastric cancer. Lancet. (2020) 396(10251):635–48. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31288-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  BessèdeEMégraudF. Microbiota and gastric cancer. Semin Cancer Biol (2022) 86:11–7. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2022.05.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  ChattopadhyayIGundamarajuRRajeevA. Diversification and deleterious role of microbiome in gastric cancer. Cancer Rep (Hoboken) (2023), e1878. doi: 10.1002/cnr2.1878

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  YangJZhouXLiuXLingZJiF. Role of the gastric microbiome in gastric cancer: from carcinogenesis to treatment. Front Microbiol (2021) 12:641322. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.641322

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  LevyMKolodziejczykAAThaissCAElinavE. Dysbiosis and the immune system. Nat Rev Immunol (2017) 17(4):219–32. doi: 10.1038/nri.2017.7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  GarrettWS. Cancer and the microbiota. Science. (2015) 348(6230):80–6. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa4972

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  WengMTChiuYTWeiPYChiangCWFangHLWeiSC. Microbiota and gastrointestinal cancer. J Formos Med Assoc (2019) 118 Suppl 1:S32–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2019.01.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  CaoLYuJ. Effect of helicobacter pylori infection on the composition of gastric microbiota in the development of gastric cancer. Gastrointest Tumors. (2015) 2(1):14–25. doi: 10.1159/000380893

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  StewartOAWuFChenY. The role of gastric microbiota in gastric cancer. Gut Microbes (2020) 11(5):1220–30. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2020.1762520

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  BikEMEckburgPBGillSRNelsonKEPurdomEAFrancoisFet al. Molecular analysis of the bacterial microbiota in the human stomach. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (2006) 103(3):732–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506655103

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  LiXXWongGLHToKFWongVWSLaiLHChowDKLet al. Bacterial microbiota profiling in gastritis without Helicobacter pylori infection or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. PloS One (2009) 4(11):e7985. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007985

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Zwolinska-WcisłoMBudakABogdałJTrojanowskaDStachuraJ. Fungal colonization of gastric mucosa and its clinical relevance. Med Sci Monit (2001) 7(5):982–8.

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  ZhangCPowellSEBetelDShahMA. The gastric microbiome and its influence on gastric carcinogenesis: current knowledge and ongoing research. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am (2017) 31(3):389–408. doi: 10.1016/j.hoc.2017.01.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  ZhangSShiDLiMLiYWangXLiW. The relationship between gastric microbiota and gastric disease. Scand J Gastroenterol (2019) 54(4):391–6. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2019.1591499

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  AnderssonAFLindbergMJakobssonHBäckhedFNyrénPEngstrandL. Comparative analysis of human gut microbiota by barcoded pyrosequencing. PloS One (2008) 3(7):e2836. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002836

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  WangLLYuXJZhanSHJiaSJTianZBDongQJ. Participation of microbiota in the development of gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol (2014) 20(17):4948–52. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i17.4948

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  HeCPengCShuXWangHZhuZOuyangYet al. Convergent dysbiosis of gastric mucosa and fluid microbiome during stomach carcinogenesis. Gastric Cancer. (2022) 25(5):837–49. doi: 10.1007/s10120-022-01302-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  ZhangXLiCCaoWZhangZ. Alterations of gastric microbiota in gastric cancer and precancerous stages. Front Cell Infect Microbiol (2021) 11:559148. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.559148

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  DengYDingXSongQZhaoGHanLDingBet al. Alterations in mucosa-associated microbiota in the stomach of patients with gastric cancer. Cell Oncol (Dordr). (2021) 44(3):701–14. doi: 10.1007/s13402-021-00596-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  WangZGaoXZengRWuQSunHWuWet al. Changes of the gastric mucosal microbiome associated with histological stages of gastric carcinogenesis. Front Microbiol (2020) 11:997. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00997

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  SunQHZhangJShiYYZhangJFuWWDingSG. Microbiome changes in the gastric mucosa and gastric juice in different histological stages of Helicobacter pylori-negative gastric cancers. World J Gastroenterol (2022) 28(3):365–80. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i3.365

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  PengXYaoSHuangJZhaoYChenHChenLet al. Alterations in bacterial community dynamics from noncancerous to Gastric cancer. Front Microbiol (2023) 14:1138928. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1138928

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  ChenXHWangAChuANGongYHYuanY. Mucosa-associated microbiota in gastric cancer tissues compared with non-cancer tissues. Front Microbiol (2019) 10:1261. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01261

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  LiuXShaoLLiuXJiFMeiYChengYet al. Alterations of gastric mucosal microbiota across different stomach microhabitats in a cohort of 276 patients with gastric cancer. EBioMedicine. (2019) 40:336–48. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.12.034

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  CokerOODaiZNieYZhaoGCaoLNakatsuGet al. Mucosal microbiome dysbiosis in gastric carcinogenesis. Gut. (2018) 67(6):1024–32. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314281

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  FerreiraRMPereira-MarquesJPinto-RibeiroICostaJLCarneiroFMaChadoJCet al. Gastric microbial community profiling reveals a dysbiotic cancer-associated microbiota. Gut. (2018) 67(2):226–36. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314205

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  LiTHQinYShamPCLauKSChuKMLeungWK. Alterations in gastric microbiota after H. Pylori eradication and in different histological stages of gastric carcinogenesis. Sci Rep (2017) 7:44935. doi: 10.1038/srep44935

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  LiYHuYZhanXSongYXuMWangSet al. Meta-analysis reveals Helicobacter pylori mutual exclusivity and reproducible gastric microbiome alterations during gastric carcinoma progression. Gut Microbes (2023) 15(1):2197835. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2023.2197835

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  CheungKSLeungWK. Risk of gastric cancer development after eradication of Helicobacter pylori. World J Gastrointest Oncol (2018) 10(5):115–23. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v10.i5.115

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  LertpiriyapongKWharyMTMuthupalaniSLofgrenJLGamazonERFengYet al. Gastric colonisation with a restricted commensal microbiota replicates the promotion of neoplastic lesions by diverse intestinal microbiota in the Helicobacter pylori INS-GAS mouse model of gastric carcinogenesis. Gut. (2014) 63(1):54–63. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305178

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  YoonHKimNLeeHSShinCMParkYSLeeDHet al. Helicobacter pylori-negative gastric cancer in South Korea: incidence and clinicopathologic characteristics. Helicobacter. (2011) 16(5):382–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-5378.2011.00859.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  KimHNKimMJJacobsJPYangHJ. Altered gastric microbiota and inflammatory cytokine responses in patients with helicobacter pylori-negative gastric cancer. Nutrients. (2022) 14(23):4981. doi: 10.3390/nu14234981

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  DingJManYGDengXChenT. Differences in community structure of gastrointestinal tract between Helicobacter pylori positive patients and negative patients with gastric cancer. J Cancer. (2022) 13(6):1905–13. doi: 10.7150/jca.69873

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  SahanAZHazraTKDasS. The pivotal role of DNA repair in infection mediated-inflammation and cancer. Front Microbiol (2018) 9:663. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00663

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  MathebelaPDamaneBPMulaudziTVMkhize-KhwitshanaZLGaudjiGRDlaminiZ. Influence of the microbiome metagenomics and epigenomics on gastric cancer. Int J Mol Sci (2022) 23(22):13750. doi: 10.3390/ijms232213750

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  SalvatoriSMarafiniILaudisiFMonteleoneGStolfiC. Helicobacter pylori and gastric cancer: pathogenetic mechanisms. Int J Mol Sci (2023) 24(3):2895. doi: 10.3390/ijms24032895

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  AnsariSYamaokaY. Helicobacter pylori virulence factor cytotoxin-associated gene A (CagA)-mediated gastric pathogenicity. Int J Mol Sci (2020) 21(19):7430. doi: 10.3390/ijms21197430

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  SzabòIBrutscheSTombolaFMoschioniMSatinBTelfordJLet al. Formation of anion-selective channels in the cell plasma membrane by the toxin VacA of Helicobacter pylori is required for its biological activity. EMBO J (1999) 18(20):5517–27. doi: 10.1093/emboj/18.20.5517

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  ZhuPXueJZhangZJJiaYPTongYNHanDet al. Helicobacter pylori VacA induces autophagic cell death in gastric epithelial cells via the endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway. Cell Death Dis (2017) 8(12):3207. doi: 10.1038/s41419-017-0011-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  YokoyamaHFujiiS. Structures and metal-binding properties of Helicobacter pylori neutrophil-activating protein with a di-nuclear ferroxidase center. Biomolecules. (2014) 4(3):600–15. doi: 10.3390/biom4030600

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  FuHW. Helicobacter pylori neutrophil-activating protein: from molecular pathogenesis to clinical applications. World J Gastroenterol (2014) 20(18):5294–301. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i18.5294

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  PolenghiABossiFFischettiFDuriguttoPCabrelleATamassiaNet al. The neutrophil-activating protein of Helicobacter pylori crosses endothelia to promote neutrophil adhesion in vivo. J Immunol (2007) 178(3):1312–20. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.178.3.1312

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  NishiokaHBaessoISemenzatoGTrentinLRappuoliRDel GiudiceGet al. The neutrophil-activating protein of Helicobacter pylori (HP-NAP) activates the MAPK pathway in human neutrophils. Eur J Immunol (2003) 33(4):840–9. doi: 10.1002/eji.200323726

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  HarrerABoehmMBackertSTegtmeyerN. Overexpression of serine protease HtrA enhances disruption of adherens junctions, paracellular transmigration and type IV secretion of CagA by Helicobacter pylori. Gut Pathog (2017) 9:40. doi: 10.1186/s13099-017-0189-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  HoyBLöwerMWeydigCCarraGTegtmeyerNGeppertTet al. Helicobacter pylori HtrA is a new secreted virulence factor that cleaves E-cadherin to disrupt intercellular adhesion. EMBO Rep (2010) 11(10):798–804. doi: 10.1038/embor.2010.114

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  RicciVGiannouliMROmanoMZarrilliR. Helicobacter pylori gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase and its pathogenic role. World J Gastroenterol (2014) 20(3):630–8. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i3.630

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  OertliMNobenMEnglerDBSemperRPReuterSMaxeinerJet al. Helicobacter pylori γ-glutamyl transpeptidase and vacuolating cytotoxin promote gastric persistence and immune tolerance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (2013) 110(8):3047–52. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211248110

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  LingSSMYeohKGHoB. Helicobacter pylori γ-glutamyl transpeptidase: a formidable virulence factor. World J Gastroenterol (2013) 19(45):8203–10. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i45.8203

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  IshijimaNSuzukiMAshidaHIchikawaYKanegaeYSaitoIet al. BabA-mediated adherence is a potentiator of the Helicobacter pylori type IV secretion system activity. J Biol Chem (2011) 286(28):25256–64. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M111.233601

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  GerhardMLehnNNeumayerNBorénTRadRScheppWet al. Clinical relevance of the Helicobacter pylori gene for blood-group antigen-binding adhesin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (1999) 96(22):12778–83. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.22.12778

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  UnemoMAspholm-HurtigMIlverDBergströmJBorénTDanielssonDet al. The sialic acid binding SabA adhesin of Helicobacter pylori is essential for nonopsonic activation of human neutrophils. J Biol Chem (2005) 280(15):15390–7. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M412725200

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  HorridgeDNBegleyAAKimJAravindanNFanKForsythMH. Outer inflammatory protein a (OipA) of Helicobacter pylori is regulated by host cell contact and mediates CagA translocation and interleukin-8 response only in the presence of a functional cag pathogenicity island type IV secretion system. Pathog Dis (2017) 75(8):ftx113. doi: 10.1093/femspd/ftx113

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  TeymournejadOMobarezAMHassanZMMoazzeniSMAhmadabadHN. In vitro suppression of dendritic cells by Helicobacter pylori OipA. Helicobacter. (2014) 19(2):136–43. doi: 10.1111/hel.12107

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  TeymournejadOMobarezAMHassanZMTalebi Bezmin AbadiA. Binding of the Helicobacter pylori OipA causes apoptosis of host cells via modulation of Bax/Bcl-2 levels. Sci Rep (2017) 7(1):8036. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08176-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  BehrensIKBuschBIshikawa-AnkerholdHPalamidesPShivelyJEStannersCet al. The hopQ-CEACAM interaction controls cagA translocation, phosphorylation, and phagocytosis of helicobacter pylori in neutrophils. mBio. (2020) 11(1):e03256–19. doi: 10.1128/mBio.03256-19

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  GurCMaaloufNGerhardMSingerBBEmgårdJTemperVet al. The Helicobacter pylori HopQ outermembrane protein inhibits immune cell activities. Oncoimmunology. (2019) 8(4):e1553487. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2018.1553487

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  NguyenQASchmittLMejías-LuqueRGerhardM. Effects of Helicobacter pylori adhesin HopQ binding to CEACAM receptors in the human stomach. Front Immunol (2023) 14:1113478. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1113478

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  KennemannLBrennekeBAndresSEngstrandLMeyerTFAebischerTet al. In vivo sequence variation in HopZ, a phase-variable outer membrane protein of Helicobacter pylori. Infect Immun (2012) 80(12):4364–73. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00977-12

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  PeckBOrtkampMDiehlKDHundtEKnappB. Conservation, localization and expression of HopZ, a protein involved in adhesion of Helicobacter pylori. Nucleic Acids Res (1999) 27(16):3325–33. doi: 10.1093/nar/27.16.3325

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  AndoTYoshidaTEnomotoSAsadaKTatematsuMIchinoseMet al. DNA methylation of microRNA genes in gastric mucosae of gastric cancer patients: its possible involvement in the formation of epigenetic field defect. Int J Cancer. (2009) 124(10):2367–74. doi: 10.1002/ijc.24219

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  MuhammadJSEladlMAKhoderG. Helicobacter pylori-induced DNA methylation as an epigenetic modulator of gastric cancer: recent outcomes and future direction. Pathogens. (2019) 8(1):23. doi: 10.3390/pathogens8010023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  FuHWLaiYC. The Role of Helicobacter pylori Neutrophil-Activating Protein in the Pathogenesis of H. pylori and Beyond: from a virulence factor to therapeutic targets and therapeutic agents. Int J Mol Sci (2022) 24(1):91. doi: 10.3390/ijms24010091

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  BajJFormaASitarzMPortincasaPGarrutiGKrasowskaDet al. Helicobacter pylori virulence factors-mechanisms of bacterial pathogenicity in the gastric microenvironment. Cells. (2020) 10(1):27. doi: 10.3390/cells10010027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  AnsariSYamaokaY. Helicobacter pylori Virulence Factors Exploiting Gastric Colonization and its Pathogenicity. Toxins (Basel). (2019) 11(11):677. doi: 10.3390/toxins11110677

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  MahdaviJSondénBHurtigMOlfatFOForsbergLRocheNet al. Helicobacter pylori sabA adhesin in persistent infection and chronic inflammation. Science. (2002) 297(5581):573–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1069076

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  OsterPVaillantLRivaEMcMillanBBegkaCTruntzerCet al. Helicobacter pylori infection has a detrimental impact on the efficacy of cancer immunotherapies. Gut. (2022) 71(3):457–66. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-323392

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  DasSSuarezGBeswickEJSierraJCGrahamDYReyesVE. Expression of B7-H1 on gastric epithelial cells: its potential role in regulating T cells during Helicobacter pylori infection. J Immunol (2006) 176(5):3000–9. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.176.5.3000

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  OsterPVaillantLMcMillanBVelinD. The efficacy of cancer immunotherapies is compromised by helicobacter pylori infection. Front Immunol (2022) 13:899161. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.899161

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  NaseemMBarziABrezden-MasleyCPucciniABergerMDTokunagaRet al. Outlooks on Epstein-Barr virus associated gastric cancer. Cancer Treat Rev (2018) 66:15–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2018.03.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  TavakoliAMonavariSHSolaymani MohammadiFKianiSJArmatSFarahmandM. Association between Epstein-Barr virus infection and gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. (2020) 20(1):493. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07013-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  KusanoMToyotaMSuzukiHAkinoKAokiFFujitaMet al. Genetic, epigenetic, and clinicopathologic features of gastric carcinomas with the CpG island methylator phenotype and an association with Epstein-Barr virus. Cancer. (2006) 106(7):1467–79. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21789

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  QiuMHeCLuSGuanWWangFWangXet al. Prospective observation: Clinical utility of plasma Epstein–Barr virus DNA load in EBV-associated gastric carcinoma patients. Int J Cancer. (2020) 146(1):272–80. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32490

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  SinghSJhaHC. Status of epstein-barr virus coinfection with helicobacter pylori in gastric cancer. J Oncol (2017) 2017:3456264. doi: 10.1155/2017/3456264

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  SuSZouZChenFDingNDuJShaoJet al. CRISPR-Cas9-mediated disruption of PD-1 on human T cells for adoptive cellular therapies of EBV positive gastric cancer. Oncoimmunology. (2017) 6(1):e1249558. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2016.1249558

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  WangHChenXLLiuKBaiDZhangWHChenXZet al. Associations between gastric cancer risk and virus infection other than epstein-barr virus: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on epidemiological studies. Clin Transl Gastroenterol (2020) 11(7):e00201. doi: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000201

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  MirzaeiHGoudarziHEslamiGFaghihlooE. Role of viruses in gastrointestinal cancer. J Cell Physiol (2018) 233(5):4000–14. doi: 10.1002/jcp.26194

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  LiMWuSLuoHNiuJYanYFangYet al. Serological and molecular characterization of hepatitis B virus infection in gastric cancer. Front Cell Infect Microbiol (2022) 12:894836. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.894836

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  CuiHJinYChenFNiHHuCXuYet al. Clinicopathological evidence of hepatitis B virus infection in the development of gastric adenocarcinoma. J Med Virol (2020) 92(1):71–7. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25584

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  SongCLvJLiuYChenJGGeZZhuJet al. Associations between hepatitis B virus infection and risk of all cancer types. JAMA Netw Open (2019) 2(6):e195718. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.5718

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  GantuyaBEl SeragHBMatsumotoTAjamiNJUchidaTOyuntsetsegKet al. Gastric mucosal microbiota in a Mongolian population with gastric cancer and precursor conditions. Aliment Pharmacol Ther (2020) 51(8):770–80. doi: 10.1111/apt.15675

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  VinascoKMitchellHMKaakoushNOCastaño-RodríguezN. Microbial carcinogenesis: Lactic acid bacteria in gastric cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. (2019) 1872(2):188309. doi: 10.1016/j.bbcan.2019.07.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  LiZPLiuJXLuLLWangLLXuLGuoZHet al. Overgrowth of Lactobacillus in gastric cancer. World J Gastrointest Oncol (2021) 13(9):1099–108. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v13.i9.1099

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  JonesRMMercanteJWNeishAS. Reactive oxygen production induced by the gut microbiota: pharmacotherapeutic implications. Curr Med Chem (2012) 19(10):1519–29. doi: 10.2174/092986712799828283

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  OhtaKKawanoRItoN. Lactic acid bacteria convert human fibroblasts to multipotent cells. PloS One (2012) 7(12):e51866. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051866

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  BoehmETThonCKupcinskasJSteponaitieneRSkiecevicieneJCanbayAet al. Fusobacterium nucleatum is associated with worse prognosis in Lauren’s diffuse type gastric cancer patients. Sci Rep (2020) 10(1):16240. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-73448-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  NieSWangAYuanY. Comparison of clinicopathological parameters, prognosis, micro-ecological environment and metabolic function of Gastric Cancer with or without Fusobacterium sp. Infection. J Cancer. (2021) 12(4):1023–32. doi: 10.7150/jca.50918

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  StasiewiczMKarpińskiTM. The oral microbiota and its role in carcinogenesis. Semin Cancer Biol (2022) 86(Pt 3):633–42. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2021.11.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  HattaMNAMohamad HanifEAChinSFNeohHM. Pathogens and carcinogenesis: A review. Biol (Basel). (2021) 10(6):533. doi: 10.3390/biology10060533

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  GurCIbrahimYIsaacsonBYaminRAbedJGamlielMet al. Binding of the Fap2 protein of Fusobacterium nucleatum to human inhibitory receptor TIGIT protects tumors from immune cell attack. Immunity. (2015) 42(2):344–55. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2015.01.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  SunZXiongCTehSWLimJCWKumarSThilakavathyK. Mechanisms of oral bacterial virulence factors in pancreatic cancer. Front Cell Infect Microbiol (2019) 9:412. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2019.00412

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  ChenSSuTZhangYLeeAHeJGeQet al. Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes colorectal cancer metastasis by modulating KRT7-AS/KRT7. Gut Microbes (2020) 11(3):511–25. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2019.1695494

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  ZhongMXiongYZhaoJGaoZMaJWuZet al. Candida albicans disorder is associated with gastric carcinogenesis. Theranostics. (2021) 11(10):4945–56. doi: 10.7150/thno.55209

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  YuDLiuZ. The research progress in the interaction between Candida albicans and cancers. Front Microbiol (2022) 13:988734. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.988734

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  NasryWHSRodriguez-LecompteJCMartinCK. Role of COX-2/PGE2 mediated inflammation in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Cancers (Basel). (2018) 10(10):348. doi: 10.3390/cancers10100348

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  WuZFZouKXiangCJJinZJDingHHXuSet al. Helicobacter pylori infection is associated with the co-occurrence of bacteria in the oral cavity and the gastric mucosa. Helicobacter. (2021) 26(2):e12786. doi: 10.1111/hel.12786

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  ChenXWangNWangJLiaoBChengLRenB. The interactions between oral-gut axis microbiota and Helicobacter pylori. Front Cell Infect Microbiol (2022) 12:914418. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.914418

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  SenderRFuchsSMiloR. Revised estimates for the number of human and bacteria cells in the body. PloS Biol (2016) 14(8):e1002533. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  PanebiancoCPotenzaAAndriulliAPazienzaV. Exploring the microbiota to better understand gastrointestinal cancers physiology. Clin Chem Lab Med (2018) 56(9):1400–12. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2017-1163

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  QiYFSunJNRenLFCaoXLDongJHTaoKet al. Intestinal microbiota is altered in patients with gastric cancer from Shanxi province, China. Dig Dis Sci (2019) 64(5):1193–203. doi: 10.1007/s10620-018-5411-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  SarhadiVMathewBKokkolaAKarlaTTikkanenMRautelinHet al. Gut microbiota of patients with different subtypes of gastric cancer and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Gut Pathog (2021) 13(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s13099-021-00403-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  ZhangKJiXSongZWuFQuYJinXet al. Butyrate inhibits gastric cancer cells by inducing mitochondria-mediated apoptosis. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen (2023) 26(3):630–8. doi: 10.2174/1386207325666220720114642

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  LiangYRaoZDuDWangYFangT. Butyrate prevents the migration and invasion, and aerobic glycolysis in gastric cancer via inhibiting Wnt/β-catenin/c-Myc signaling. Drug Dev Res (2023) 84(3):532–41. doi: 10.1002/ddr.22043

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  RoutyBLe ChatelierEDerosaLDuongCPMAlouMTDaillèreRet al. Gut microbiome influences efficacy of PD-1-based immunotherapy against epithelial tumors. Science. (2018) 359(6371):91–7. doi: 10.1126/science.aan3706

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  SivanACorralesLHubertNWilliamsJBAquino-MichaelsKEarleyZMet al. Commensal Bifidobacterium promotes antitumor immunity and facilitates anti-PD-L1 efficacy. Science. (2015) 350(6264):1084–9. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4255

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  MatsonVFesslerJBaoRChongsuwatTZhaYAlegreMLet al. The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients. Science. (2018) 359(6371):104–8. doi: 10.1126/science.aao3290

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  FrankelAECoughlinLAKimJFroehlichTWXieYFrenkelEPet al. Metagenomic shotgun sequencing and unbiased metabolomic profiling identify specific human gut microbiota and metabolites associated with immune checkpoint therapy efficacy in melanoma patients. Neoplasia. (2017) 19(10):848–55. doi: 10.1016/j.neo.2017.08.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  MengCBaiCBrownTDHoodLETianQ. Human gut microbiota and gastrointestinal cancer. Genomics Proteomics Bioinf (2018) 16(1):33–49. doi: 10.1016/j.gpb.2017.06.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  XuXYingJ. Gut microbiota and immunotherapy. Front Microbiol (2022) 13:945887. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.945887

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  BarraWFSarquisDPKhayatASKhayatBCMDemachkiSAnaissiAKMet al. Gastric cancer microbiome. Pathobiology. (2021) 88(2):156–69. doi: 10.1159/000512833

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  van VlietMJHarmsenHJMde BontESJMTissingWJE. The role of intestinal microbiota in the development and severity of chemotherapy-induced mucositis. PloS Pathog (2010) 6(5):e1000879. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1000879

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  KumarRSharmaAGuptaMPadwadYSharmaR. Cell-free culture supernatant of probiotic lactobacillus fermentum protects against H2O2-induced premature senescence by suppressing ROS-akt-mTOR axis in murine preadipocytes. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins. (2020) 12(2):563–76. doi: 10.1007/s12602-019-09576-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  VétizouMPittJMDaillèreRLepagePWaldschmittNFlamentCet al. Anticancer immunotherapy by CTLA-4 blockade relies on the gut microbiota. Science. (2015) 350(6264):1079–84. doi: 10.1126/science.aad1329

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  DengHLiZTanYGuoZLiuYWangYet al. A novel strain of Bacteroides fragilis enhances phagocytosis and polarises M1 macrophages. Sci Rep (2016) 6:29401. doi: 10.1038/srep29401

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  DaiZZhangJWuQFangHShiCLiZet al. Intestinal microbiota: a new force in cancer immunotherapy. Cell Commun Signal (2020) 18(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s12964-020-00599-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  FakharianFAsgariBNabavi-RadASadeghiASoleimaniNYadegarAet al. The interplay between Helicobacter pylori and the gut microbiota: An emerging driver influencing the immune system homeostasis and gastric carcinogenesis. Front Cell Infect Microbiol (2022) 12:953718. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.953718

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  AntushevichH. Fecal microbiota transplantation in disease therapy. Clin Chim Acta (2020) 503:90–8. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2019.12.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  WangJWKuoCHKuoFCWangYKHsuWHYuFJet al. Fecal microbiota transplantation: Review and update. J Formos Med Assoc (2019) 118 Suppl 1:S23–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2018.08.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  Łusiak-SzelachowskaMWeber-DąbrowskaBJończyk-MatysiakEWojciechowskaRGórskiA. Bacteriophages in the gastrointestinal tract and their implications. Gut Pathog (2017) 9:44. doi: 10.1186/s13099-017-0196-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  NandiDParidaSSharmaD. The gut microbiota in breast cancer development and treatment: the good, the bad, and the useful! Gut Microbes (2023) 15(1):2221452. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2023.2221452

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  El TekleGGarrettWS. Bacteria in cancer initiation, promotion and progression. Nat Rev Cancer (2023) 23(9):600–18. doi: 10.1038/s41568-023-00594-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  HussainSJooJKangJKimBBraunGBSheZGet al. Antibiotic-loaded nanoparticles targeted to the site of infection enhance antibacterial efficacy. Nat BioMed Eng. (2018) 2(2):95–103. doi: 10.1038/s41551-017-0187-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  ZhengDWDongXPanPChenKWFanJXChengSXet al. Phage-guided modulation of the gut microbiota of mouse models of colorectal cancer augments their responses to chemotherapy. Nat BioMed Eng. (2019) 3(9):717–28. doi: 10.1038/s41551-019-0423-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  DongXPanPZhengDWBaoPZengXZhangXZ. Bioinorganic hybrid bacteriophage for modulation of intestinal microbiota to remodel tumor-immune microenvironment against colorectal cancer. Sci Adv (2020) 6(20):eaba1590. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aba1590

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  CuomoPPapaianniMFulgioneAGuerraFCapparelliRMedagliaC. An innovative approach to control H. pylori-induced persistent inflammation and colonization. Microorganisms (2020) 8(8):1214. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8081214

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  GentileCLWeirTL. The gut microbiota at the intersection of diet and human health. Science. (2018) 362(6416):776–80. doi: 10.1126/science.aau5812

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  Franco-de-MoraesACde Almeida-PitittoBda Rocha FernandesGGomesEPda Costa PereiraAFerreiraSRG. Worse inflammatory profile in omnivores than in vegetarians associates with the gut microbiota composition. Diabetol Metab Syndr (2017) 9:62. doi: 10.1186/s13098-017-0261-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  ZhangCZhangMPangXZhaoYWangLZhaoL. Structural resilience of the gut microbiota in adult mice under high-fat dietary perturbations. ISME J (2012) 6(10):1848–57. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2012.27

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  VernieriCFucàGLigorioFHuberVVingianiAIannelliFet al. Fasting-mimicking diet is safe and reshapes metabolism and antitumor immunity in patients with cancer. Cancer Discovery (2022) 12(1):90–107. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-0030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  HurH. Prospective clinical study for early recovery after gastric cancer surgery. clinicaltrials.gov (2012). Report No.: NCT01642953.

  • Google Scholar

• 130

  Rubio-PatiñoCBossowskiJPDonatisGMDMondragónLVillaEAiraLEet al. Low-protein diet induces IRE1α-dependent anticancer immunosurveillance. Cell Metab (2018) 27(4):828–842.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2018.02.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  ZhangXYYangKLLiYZhaoYJiangKWWangQet al. Can dietary nutrients prevent cancer chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity? An evidence mapping of human studies and animal models. Front Cardiovasc Med (2022) 9:921609. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.921609

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  Kaźmierczak-SiedleckaKDacaAFicMvan de WeteringTFolwarskiMMakarewiczW. Therapeutic methods of gut microbiota modification in colorectal cancer management – fecal microbiota transplantation, prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics. Gut Microbes (2020) 11(6):1518–30. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2020.1764309

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  SandersMEMerensteinDJReidGGibsonGRRastallRA. Probiotics and prebiotics in intestinal health and disease: from biology to the clinic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol (2019) 16(10):605–16. doi: 10.1038/s41575-019-0173-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  Aguilar-ToaláJEHallFGUrbizo-ReyesUCGarciaHSVallejo-CordobaBGonzález-CórdovaAFet al. In silico prediction and in vitro assessment of multifunctional properties of postbiotics obtained from two probiotic bacteria. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins. (2020) 12(2):608–22. doi: 10.1007/s12602-019-09568-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  HullMA. Biospecimen collection for:Prebiotic effect of eicosapentaenoic acid treatment for colorectal cancer liver metastases. clinicaltrials.gov (2021). Report No.: NCT04682665.

  • Google Scholar

• 136

  ZhengMPiXLiHChengSSuYZhangYet al. Ganoderma spp. polysaccharides are potential prebiotics: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr (2022), 1–19. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2022.2110035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  TuratiFConcinaFBertuccioPFioriFParpinelMGaravelloWet al. Prebiotics and the risk of upper digestive tract and stomach cancers: the PrebiotiCa study. J Acad Nutr Diet. (2023), S2212–2672(23)01275-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2023.07.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar