Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Intest Res : Intestinal Research

Search
Advanced Search
IMPACT FACTOR
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Intest Res > Volume 23(4); 2025 > Article
Review
IBD Targeting the gut microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease: from concept to clinical reality
Nathalie Rolhion1,2orcid, Harry Sokol1,2,3,4orcid
Intestinal Research 2025;23(4):396-404.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2025.00104
Published online: October 28, 2025

1Sorbonne Université, INSERM UMRS-938, Centre de Recherche Saint-Antoine (CRSA), Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Paris, France

2Gut, Liver & Microbiome Research (GLIMMER), FHU, Paris, France

3Department of Gastroenterology, Saint-Antoine Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Paris, France

4INRAE, UMR1319 Micalis, AgroParisTech, Jouy-en-Josas, France

Correspondence to Harry Sokol, Sorbonne Université, INSERM UMRS-938, Centre de Recherche Saint-Antoine, CRSA, AP-HP, Paris F-75012, France. E-mail: harry.sokol@gmail.com
• Received: June 8, 2025   • Revised: July 1, 2025   • Accepted: July 4, 2025

© 2025 Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next
  • 6,294 Views
  • 149 Download
  • 12 Web of Science
  • 12 Crossref
  • 11 Scopus
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • The gut microbiota, a complex community of trillions of microorganisms inhabiting the human gastrointestinal tract, has emerged as a critical regulator of immune homeostasis and gastrointestinal health. In the context of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), comprising primarily Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, disruptions to this microbial ecosystem—collectively termed dysbiosis—have been increasingly recognized as central to disease pathogenesis. Recent research has established that alterations in gut microbiota not only reflect disease states but may actively drive immune dysregulation, barrier dysfunction, and mucosal inflammation. This review synthesizes current knowledge on the role of the gut microbiota in IBD and evaluates the therapeutic landscape of microbiota-modulating strategies using selected examples. Fecal microbiota transplantation, while offering proof-of-concept validation, is hindered by standardization challenges and variable clinical outcomes. As a response, microbiome-based therapeutics have evolved toward defined live biotherapeutic products including bacterial consortia and single-strain products, postbiotics, and metabolite-centered approaches targeting specific pathways. Groundbreaking research into rationally designed synthetic microbiomes and next-generation probiotics is driving a paradigm shift in microbiota-based treatment for IBD from empirical to precision-guided interventions.
  • Keywords: Inflammatory bowel diseases; Crohn disease; Ulcerative colitis; Microbiota; Fecal microbiota transplantation
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which encompasses Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), represents chronic, relapsing inflammatory disorders of the gastrointestinal tract with multifactorial etiology. Although the interplay of host genetics, immune responses, environmental factors, and diet is well established, the gut microbiota has emerged as a pivotal contributor to both disease onset and progression. The gut microbiome comprises diverse bacteria, viruses, fungi, and archaea that engage in complex interactions with host epithelial and immune cells, as well as with one another. In healthy individuals, these microbial consortia maintain immune equilibrium, synthesize beneficial metabolites such as short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), and prevent colonization by pathogens.
Recent metagenomic studies, including those utilizing longitudinal cohorts, have demonstrated that perturbations in microbial composition, referred to as dysbiosis, are detectable years before clinical IBD diagnosis [1]. These perturbations are characterized by a reduction in beneficial taxa such as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii and other members of the Ruminococcaceae family, along with a corresponding expansion of potentially harmful species like adherent-invasive Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Ruminococcus gnavus [2]. Such shifts not only reflect disease state but may potentiate inflammatory pathways via increased epithelial permeability, aberrant antigen presentation, and activation of pro-inflammatory cytokine networks.
The evolution of IBD research has transitioned from descriptive taxonomic profiling to functional and mechanistic exploration. Metabolomics, transcriptomics, and gnotobiotic mouse models have illuminated key pathways through which microbial communities modulate host immunity. These insights have propelled the development of therapeutic strategies aimed at restoring microbial homeostasis or at using microbiome-derived compounds as therapeutic agents. The current review evaluates the scientific rationale, clinical efficacy, and translational potential of various microbiota-targeted therapies in IBD by using selected examples (Table 1) [3-8].
A growing body of translational research has solidified the role of gut dysbiosis in the pathogenesis of IBD. Dysbiosis in IBD is marked by a reduced diversity of commensal microbes and a simultaneous enrichment of pro-inflammatory taxa. Longitudinal studies, such as those from the Crohn’s and Colitis Canada Genetic Environmental Microbial project, have demonstrated that shifts in microbial communities, including an increased abundance of Ruminoccus torques and Blautia and decreased abundance of F. prausnitzii, may precede clinical symptoms by several years [1]. Similarly, alterations of the gut microbiome have been associated with disease recurrence [9].
Experimental models support these observations. Germfree mice colonized with fecal samples from IBD patients exhibit exaggerated colitis symptoms compared to those receiving feces from healthy donors [10]. These results are corroborated by data demonstrating that microbiota from individuals with CD or UC are capable of triggering mucosal inflammation and disrupting epithelial barrier function.
Pathobionts such as adherent-invasive E. coli and Fusobacterium nucleatum are frequently overrepresented in IBD patients. These bacteria are able to adhere to and invade intestinal epithelial cells, evade host immunity, and stimulate pro-inflammatory cytokines like interleukin (IL)-1β and tumor necrosis factor α. On the other hand, beneficial bacteria such as F. prausnitzii produce butyrate and other SCFAs that reinforce epithelial integrity and promote regulatory T cell development [11].
Microbial-derived metabolites such as tryptophan catabolites also play an important immunoregulatory role. Indoles, produced by some members of the gut microbiota and from the metabolisms of tryptophan, activate the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), which induces IL-22 production by lymphoid cells, enhance the production of antimicrobial peptides, con-tributing to maintaining epithelial cell integrity [12,13]. Disruptions in this axis—either due to microbial loss or metabolic dysfunction—can predispose the gut to inflammatory insults.
Overall, the convergence of human cohort studies, microbial profiling, and animal models provides compelling evidence that microbial dysbiosis is not merely an epiphenomenon but a central player in IBD pathogenesis. It can thus be targeted from a therapeutic perspective using different strategies that aim to reduce pathobiont colonization (using antibiotics or phagotherapy) or to favor beneficial microbes (Fig. 1). The use of antibiotics has shown moderate efficacy in specific contexts, and it is associated with several drawbacks, including the emergence of antibiotic resistance and toxicity. Researchers are investigating approaches using phages that would specifically target pathobionts within the human gut without impacting the commensal microbiota adversely [14,15].
Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) represents the earliest clinical application of microbiota-based therapies in IBD. It involves transferring stool from a healthy donor to an IBD patient to restore microbial diversity and function. Initial enthusiasm for FMT stemmed from its success in treating recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections, where cure rates exceeded 80% [16]. This prompted investigations into its potential for chronic inflammatory diseases such as UC and CD.
Multiple randomized controlled trials have examined FMT efficacy in UC. Rossen et al. [3], Moayyedi et al. [4], and Paramsothy et al. [5] showed superiority compared to placebo in inducing clinical remission, and this was confirmed in more recent trials such as Costello et al. [6] and Haifer et al. [7] However, there is high variability across these studies (including donor variability, number and route of administration, i.e. colonoscopy, nasoduodenal tube, oral capsule), their size is globally limited, and no maintenance data are available. In CD the data are scarce and only 1 randomized controlled trial that evaluated the effect of FMT to maintain corticosteroid-induced clinical remission has been published so far [8]. Despite a limited number of subjects, higher engraftment by donor microbiota within the recipient’s gut was associated with more extended remission maintenance. A result that needs to be confirmed in larger studies.
Mechanistically, the effectiveness of FMT is believed to de-pend on microbial engraftment and restoration of metabolic output [17-19]. However, only a fraction of transplanted microbes successfully colonize the host gut, and long-term stability remains uncertain.
Moreover, to be able to use FMT in the treatment of chronic diseases such as IBD, a kind of standardization is mandatory, while it is indeed impossible to standardize FMT. Metagenomic studies revealed that up to 50% of shotgun metagenomics reads cannot be mapped to any known microorganism, and even when reads can be mapped to known bacteria, up to 50% of identified genes are of unknown function. And this is even worse for metabolites present in human stools that cannot be identified in 80% to 90 % of the cases [20,21]. And this is not even mentioning other components of human stools such as viruses, Archaea, Fungi, Protists, and human cell material.
Given these challenges, the field is now shifting away from crude stool-based approaches toward more refined and reproducible therapeutic formulations such as defined bacterial consortia and single-strain therapeutics. Nonetheless, FMT remains an essential proof-of-concept that therapeutic modulation of the microbiota can yield clinical benefit in IBD.
The limitations associated with FMT—including poor reproducibility, regulatory uncertainty, and the presence of unknown or potentially harmful microorganisms—have spurred interest in more defined microbiome-based therapeutics. Live biotherapeutic products (LBPs) represent a rational evolution of this approach, offering better safety profiles and mechanistic clarity.
LBPs are formulations consisting of one or more live microorganisms derived from human gut microbiome that are supposed to confer health benefits. These organisms are carefully and rationally selected based on human data (such as comparison between patients and healthy subjects) and/or functional criteria such as immunomodulatory capacity, ability to enhance mucosal barrier integrity, or restore dysbiotic microbial networks.
1. Defined Microbial Consortia
One of the most prominent examples in IBD is VE202. It is a defined 16-strain bacterial consortium derived from healthy human donors selected for its ability to induce FoxP3+ regulatory T cells. These strains have been selected following a complex process based on successive experiments of germ-free mice colonization and their administration to adult mice had therapeutic effect in colitis models [22].
Further development in this area includes large-scale synthetic microbiomes that aim to replicate the full metabolic and immunologic functionality of a healthy gut. Cheng et al. [23] constructed a 119-strain “artificial microbiome.” These strains were selected based on their prevalence in human gut, metabolic capabilities, and ability to fill ecological niches within the gut. When introduced into germ-free mice, the artificial microbiome was capable of metabolizing bile acids, and producing SCFAs and indoles at levels similar to native microbiota, indicating functional equivalence.
Compared to FMT, defined consortia offer the advantages of manufacturing consistency, enhanced safety, and greater flexibility for mechanistic dissection. As regulatory frameworks for LBPs become more robust, these products are positioned to become central to microbiome-modulating strategies for IBD and potentially other chronic inflammatory conditions.
Recent clinical trials, such as the VE202 phase 2 study, are now testing these consortia in larger, multicenter settings. These studies aim to evaluate not just clinical remission, but also microbial engraftment, mucosal healing, and immune markers such as regulatory T cell counts and cytokine profiles.
Importantly, synergy among microbial members is not merely additive. Studies have shown that consortia designed with metabolic cross-feeding and spatial organization in mind are more effective in modulating host responses [24]. For instance, one bacterium may degrade complex polysaccharides into simpler substrates, which are then fermented by another to produce SCFAs. These cascade effects underscore the importance of rational design based on ecological principles.
2. Single-Strain Approaches: F. prausnitzii
While multi-strain consortia offer broad functional coverage, single-strain approaches offer targeted immunological effects with potentially simpler manufacturing and regulatory pathways. F. prausnitzii, a key butyrate-producing commensal from the Firmicutes phylum, has emerged as a particularly promising candidate. It is one of the most prevalent and abundant species in the healthy human gut and a core member of the intestinal microbiome [25].
In patients with IBD, F. prausnitzii abundance is consistently reduced, and its loss correlates with increased disease severity and mucosal inflammation. Our landmark work in 2008 [26] demonstrated its anti-inflammatory properties, including inhibition of nuclear factor-kappa B signaling in intestinal epithelial cells and promotion of IL-10 production by immune cells. Subsequent studies confirmed its ability to induce CD4+CD8α++ regulatory T cells, enhance epithelial barrier integrity, and promote resolution of inflammation [27].
Mechanistically, F. prausnitzii produces key metabolites such as butyrate and the microbial anti-inflammatory molecule (MAM), which reinforce gut barrier functions and reduce cytokine-driven epithelial damage [28,29]. However, in the last few years, it has become clearer that a large part of the immunomodulatory effects of F. prausnitzii rely on molecules present on the bacterial wall that interact with antigen-presenting cells such as monocytes, macrophages, and dendritic cells to induce an anti-inflammatory phenotype notably characterized by an increased production of IL-10 and a decreased production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (Fig. 2) [27,30,31].
Animal studies have shown that oral administration of this bacterium can significantly attenuate colitis severity, making it a leading candidate for monotherapy or adjunctive use with other agents in IBD [27,30].
Clinical translation has begun with EXL01, a novel lyophilized oral capsule formulation designed for targeted release of F. prausnitzii in the small intestine. A completed phase 1/2a trial in patients with CD who achieved corticosteroid-induced clinical response showed no major safety and some signal of target engagement (NCT05542355, ongoing analysis). A follow-up phase 2 trial (MAINTAIN-POP) is currently enrolling patients to evaluate further its role in preventing postoperative recurrence (NCT06925061). These trials underscore the feasibility and promise of targeted single-strain therapy in IBD management.
Postbiotics represent a novel class of microbiome-targeted interventions that bypass the need for live organisms. They are composed of microbial-derived metabolites, inactivated cells, or structural components that can elicit beneficial effects on the host [32]. In the context of IBD, postbiotics offer the potential to retain the therapeutic benefits of live microbes while eliminating risks related to colonization, transfer of antibiotic resistance genes, or unintended systemic infections.
One of the most promising avenues in postbiotic research involves tryptophan-derived metabolites that function as AhR agonists [12]. AhR is a ligand-activated transcription factor that plays a central role in maintaining mucosal immunity. Activation of AhR leads to the induction of IL-22, which is involved in epithelial regeneration, antimicrobial peptide production, and restoration of mucosal homeostasis. Several studies have shown that the gut microbiota of patients with IBD exhibits a reduced ability to produce AhR agonists, playing a role in intestinal inflammation [13,33]. In addition, among the tryptophan-derived metabolites, we recently demonstrated that xanthurenic (XANA) and kynurenic (KYNA) acids have anti-inflammatory properties and that the exogenous administration of a recombinant version of aminoadipate aminotransferase the enzyme involved in the production of XANA and KYNA, successfully protected mice from colitis. This study paves the way for new therapeutic strategies that aim to correct alterations in tryptophan metabolites by manipulating the endogenous metabolic pathway using aminoadipate aminotransferase, rather than by administering these metabolites [33].
Another key family of postbiotics is SCFAs, including acetate, propionate, and butyrate [34]. These metabolites are produced by the fermentation of dietary fibers by gut bacteria and are known to serve as energy sources for colonocytes, enhance tight junction integrity, and suppress inflammation through different mechanisms, including G-protein coupled receptors (e.g., GPR43) [35]. Exogenous administration of SCFAs has shown therapeutic potential in murine models of colitis [36], though challenges with delivery and dosing have prevented its application in humans to date.
Other microbial products under investigation include microbial cell wall components like peptidoglycan fragments, bacterial-derived extracellular vesicles, and specialized proteins such as the MAM from F. prausnitzii [29]. These components may act via Toll-like receptors or other pattern recognition pathways to modulate innate and adaptive immunity.
The development of postbiotic therapies is appealing not only for safety and scalability but also for their ability to deliver specific immunomodulatory signals without the complexity of live microorganisms. As technologies for metabolomic profiling and synthetic biology advance, postbiotics may play a leading role in the next generation of IBD therapies.
Several clinical-stage programs are now developing postbiotic therapies as standalone or adjunctive treatments. For instance, synthetic tryptophan metabolites with enhanced AhR affinity are being evaluated in early-phase trials for colitis [37]. Similarly, encapsulated butyrate derivatives and novel delivery mechanisms—such as colon-targeted release coatings— are in development to overcome challenges of degradation in the upper gastrointestinal tract [38]. Other postbiotic strategies include leveraging microbial peptides with antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties. One such compound, MAM from F. prausnitzii, has been shown to reduce epithelial permeability and suppress pro-inflammatory gene expression in preclinical models [29]. Recombinant production and stabilization of such peptides could yield new classes of microbiomeinspired biologics.
These innovations are positioning postbiotics as a promising frontier in microbiome therapeutics.
Despite significant advances in microbiome science, the translation of microbiota-targeted therapies into routine clinical practice remains fraught with challenges. One of the most pressing issues is the lack of standardization across studies, particularly in terms of donor selection for FMT, microbial strain identification, and manufacturing processes for LBPs. Furthermore, the regulatory framework governing microbiome-based products is still evolving, often lagging behind scientific discovery.
Microbiome-based therapies are mechanistically distinct from the immunosuppressants used in IBD. They often lack the rapid anti-inflammatory effects seen with corticosteroids or biologics, making them less suited for managing acute flares. However, their capacity to restore immune tolerance, promote mucosal healing, and induce long-term homeostasis positions them as ideal agents for maintenance therapy and relapse prevention. This conceptual shift necessitates new trial designs and endpoints. For example, clinical trials must account for the time lag between administration and clinical effect, as well as interindividual variability in microbial composition. Stratifying patients based on microbiota profiles or inflammatory biomarkers may improve the likelihood of identifying responders.
The IMPACT trial we conducted more than 10 years ago provides a useful case study [8]. The concept of the study involved using a dual approach targeting both the immune system and the microbiota using a combination of FMT and host-directed therapies. After achieving clinical remission with corticosteroid, a single FMT was performed through colonoscopy with the aim of maintaining the remission. The number of patients enrolled in this pilot study was low, but the results suggested a superiority of FMT compared to placebo with a trend regarding the rate of clinical recurrence and statistically significant differences regarding other readouts such as endoscopic severity and C-reactive protein level. Building on these promising results, we are now conducting the MIRACLE trial, that investigates in a much larger number of patients, the effect of FMT as a maintenance strategy following anti-tumor necrosis factor withdrawal in CD (NCT04997733). While these studies are still exploratory, they underscore the importance of timing and therapeutic context in determining the efficacy of microbiome-based treatments in IBD.
Importantly, microbiome-based interventions are expected to be much safer than immunosuppressants, making them attractive candidates for fragile populations as well as for combination regimens. Their safety profile could allow earlier intervention in disease progression or usage in pediatric and elderly populations. However, larger trials with rigorous endpoint validation are necessary to establish their role in standard care algorithms.
The regulatory landscape for LBPs and defined microbial therapies is also evolving. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration classifies LBPs as biological products, subject to investigational new drug applications and rigorous manufacturing standards under Good Manufacturing Practice. In Europe, the European Medicines Agency has issued guidance for human medicinal products containing live organisms, but challenges remain around strain identity, stability, and consistency.
Finally, patient perception is another important factor to consider. Microbiome-based therapies are often seen as more “natural” or holistic, which may influence adherence and expectations. Effective communication about mechanisms, risks, and timelines will be essential in clinical deployment.
The field of microbiome research has undergone a paradigm shift, moving from observational associations to interventional strategies that leverage the therapeutic potential of gut microbes and their metabolites. In IBD, where long-term remission and mucosal healing remain elusive for many patients, microbiome-based interventions offer a novel mechanism of action that complements existing host-targeted therapies.
FMT has validated the concept that modulating the microbiota can induce clinical benefit. However, this type of treatment raises important ethical concerns related to donor rights, safety, and commercialization. Donors undergo rigorous screening and provide biological material that may ultimately be used to develop therapies with significant commercial value, yet questions about the ownership and control of donated microbiota remain unresolved. Informed consent must address not only immediate health risks but also the possibility of long-term clinical and commercial use of their biological material. Equitable donor selection is also essential, as strict eligibility criteria may systematically exclude certain populations, potentially introducing bias into the microbial profiles used for treatment. These concerns underscore the urgent need for clear, transparent policies on informed consent, benefit-sharing, and donor protection in the context of FMT. Despite its other inherent limitations, including variability, safety, and lack of standardization, FMT has paved the way for more sophisticated therapeutics. Defined microbial consortia and LBPs bring greater reproducibility, safety, and regulatory clarity. Similarly, single-strain products such as F. prausnitzii demonstrate that targeted immunomodulation is both feasible and effective. Postbiotics also represent an attractive strategy, although they have mostly not yet reached the clinical stage.
Future therapeutic strategies will likely integrate microbiome-based products with immunosuppressants or biologics to enhance efficacy and reduce side effects. This combinatorial approach may enable precision medicine in IBD, with treatments tailored to an individual’s microbial and immunological profile. To achieve this vision, substantial challenges must be addressed: scalable manufacturing, validated biomarkers for response prediction, long-term safety data, and streamlined regulatory approval paths.
Furthermore, microbiome research must extend beyond bacteria to include viromes, mycobiomes, and the interplay with host genetics and diet. Advances in computational biology, synthetic ecology, and single-cell multiomics will be critical in unraveling this complexity. Interdisciplinary collaboration between gastroenterologists, microbiologists, immunologists, and data scientists will be essential to translate laboratory findings into durable clinical outcomes.
In conclusion, the gut microbiota represents a promising frontier in the management of IBD. While hurdles remain, continued innovation and clinical validation may transform microbiome therapeutics from experimental adjuncts to mainstream treatment modalities. Besides the aim of restoring ecological balance, strategies taking advantage of microbiome-derived compounds to act on host cells in a more common pharma development framework are attractive. Indeed, from a purely medical perspective, the only objective is to restore the health of the patient. Whether achieving this objective is associated or not with a supposedly improved gut microbiome should be considered secondary.

Funding Source

Sokol H received funding from the European Research Council (ERC, ENERGISED, ERC-2021-COG-101043802) and MSDAVENIR.

Conflict of Interest

Sokol H reports lecture fees, board membership, or consultancy from Carenity, AbbVie, Astellas, Danone, Ferring, Fresenius, Mayoly Spindler, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Tillots, Enterome, BiomX, Takeda, Lilly, Sanofi, Viatris, Galapagos, LFB, Janssen, Biocodex, has stocks from Enterome and is co-founder of Exeliom Biosciences. Except for that, no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Author Contributions

Writing and approval of the final manuscript: Rolhion N, Sokol H.

Fig. 1.
Different types of strategies to target the gut microbiota in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). FMT, fecal microbiota transplantation; LBP, live biotherapeutic product; AIEC, adherent-invasive Escherichia coli.
ir-2025-00104f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Mechanisms underlying the anti-inflammatory effects of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. MAM, microbial anti-inflammatory molecule; NF-kB, nuclear factor-kappa B; IL-10, interleukin 10.
ir-2025-00104f2.jpg
Table 1
Summary of the Various Microbiota-Targeted Therapies in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Advantages Disadvantages Clinical efficacy
Antibiotics Easy to produce and to control Poor target precision
Antibiotics resistance
Toxicity		 In specific settings
Phages Relatively easy to produce
Well defined product		 Potential risk of resistance Ongoing studies
Conventional probiotics Easy to produce and to control Target often unclear
Mechanism of action often poorly defined		 Moderate effects in some studies in UC
FMT Feasible at small scale level
Interesting for proof-of-concept study		 Poor definition and control
Undefined mechanism of action
Poor standardization
Challenging scalability		 Effect demonstrated in multiple RCT in UC [3-7]
Positive results in proof of concept study in CD [8]
LBP Consortium Relatively well controlled Target often unclear
Mechanism of action often poorly defined
Production may be complex		 Ongoing studies (e.g., VE202 in phase 2)
LBP single strain Well defined product
Mechanism of action usually well defined		 Production may be complex Ongoing studies (e.g., Faecalibacterium prausnitzii in phase 2)
Postbiotics Relatively easy to produce
Well defined product
Mechanism of action usually well defined		 Formulation may be complex Ongoing studies

UC, ulcerative colitis; FMT, fecal microbiota transplantation; RCT, randomized controlled trial; CD, Crohn’s disease; LBP, live biotherapeutic product.

  • 1. Raygoza Garay JA, Turpin W, Lee SH, et al. Gut microbiome composition is associated with future onset of Crohn’s disease in healthy first-degree relatives. Gastroenterology 2023;165:670–681.PubMed
  • 2. Sartor RB, Wu GD. Roles for intestinal bacteria, viruses, and fungi in pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel diseases and therapeutic approaches. Gastroenterology 2017;152:327–339.e4.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 3. Rossen NG, Fuentes S, van der Spek MJ, et al. Findings from a randomized controlled trial of fecal transplantation for patients with ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 2015;149:110–118.e4.ArticlePubMed
  • 4. Moayyedi P, Surette MG, Kim PT, et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation induces remission in patients with active ulcerative colitis in a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology 2015;149:102–109.e6.ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Paramsothy S, Kamm MA, Kaakoush NO, et al. Multidonor intensive faecal microbiota transplantation for active ulcerative colitis: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2017;389:1218–1228.ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Costello SP, Hughes PA, Waters O, et al. Effect of fecal microbiota transplantation on 8-week remission in patients with ulcerative colitis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019;321:156–164.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 7. Haifer C, Paramsothy S, Kaakoush NO, et al. Lyophilised oral faecal microbiota transplantation for ulcerative colitis (LOTUS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;7:141–151.ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Sokol H, Landman C, Seksik P, et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation to maintain remission in Crohn’s disease: a pilot randomized controlled study. Microbiome 2020;8:12.PubMedPMC
  • 9. Sokol H, Brot L, Stefanescu C, et al. Prominence of ileal mucosa-associated microbiota to predict postoperative endoscopic recurrence in Crohn’s disease. Gut 2020;69:462–472.ArticlePubMed
  • 10. Britton GJ, Contijoch EJ, Mogno I, et al. Microbiotas from humans with inflammatory bowel disease alter the balance of gut Th17 and RORγt+ regulatory T cells and exacerbate colitis in mice. Immunity 2019;50:212–224.e4.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 11. Zhang Z, Zhang H, Chen T, Shi L, Wang D, Tang D. Regulatory role of short-chain fatty acids in inflammatory bowel disease. Cell Commun Signal 2022;20:64.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 12. Agus A, Planchais J, Sokol H. Gut microbiota regulation of tryptophan metabolism in health and disease. Cell Host Microbe 2018;23:716–724.ArticlePubMed
  • 13. Lamas B, Richard ML, Leducq V, et al. CARD9 impacts colitis by altering gut microbiota metabolism of tryptophan into aryl hydrocarbon receptor ligands. Nat Med 2016;22:598–605.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 14. Galtier M, De Sordi L, Sivignon A, et al. Bacteriophages targeting adherent invasive Escherichia coli strains as a promising new treatment for Crohn’s disease. J Crohns Colitis 2017;11:840–847.ArticlePubMed
  • 15. Titécat M, Rousseaux C, Dubuquoy C, et al. Safety and efficacy of an AIEC-targeted bacteriophage cocktail in a mice colitis model. J Crohns Colitis 2022;16:1617–1627.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 16. Benech N, Cassir N, Alric L, et al. Impact of clinical and pharmacological parameters on faecal microbiota transplantation outcome in Clostridioides difficile infections: results of a 5-year french national survey. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2025;61:159–167.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 17. Porcari S, Benech N, Valles-Colomer M, et al. Key determinants of success in fecal microbiota transplantation: from microbiome to clinic. Cell Host Microbe 2023;31:712–733.ArticlePubMed
  • 18. Ianiro G, Punčochář M, Karcher N, et al. Variability of strain engraftment and predictability of microbiome composition after fecal microbiota transplantation across different diseases. Nat Med 2022;28:1913–1923.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 19. Lavelle A, Sokol H. Understanding and predicting the efficacy of FMT. Nat Med 2022;28:1759–1760.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 20. Pasolli E, Asnicar F, Manara S, et al. Extensive unexplored human microbiome diversity revealed by over 150,000 genomes from metagenomes spanning age, geography, and lifestyle. Cell 2019;176:649–662.e20.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 21. Thomas AM, Segata N. Multiple levels of the unknown in microbiome research. BMC Biol 2019;17:48.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 22. Atarashi K, Tanoue T, Oshima K, et al. Treg induction by a rationally selected mixture of Clostridia strains from the human microbiota. Nature 2013;500:232–236.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 23. Cheng AG, Ho PY, Aranda-Díaz A, et al. Design, construction, and in vivo augmentation of a complex gut microbiome. Cell 2022;185:3617–3636.e19.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 24. Culp EJ, Goodman AL. Cross-feeding in the gut microbiome: ecology and mechanisms. Cell Host Microbe 2023;31:485–499.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 25. Martín R, Rios-Covian D, Huillet E, et al. Faecalibacterium: a bacterial genus with promising human health applications. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2023;47–fuad039.
  • 26. Sokol H, Pigneur B, Watterlot L, et al. Faecalibacterium prausnitzii is an anti-inflammatory commensal bacterium identified by gut microbiota analysis of Crohn disease patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008;105:16731–16736.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 27. Touch S, Godefroy E, Rolhion N, et al. Human CD4+CD8α+ Tregs induced by Faecalibacterium prausnitzii protect against intestinal inflammation. JCI Insight 2022;7:e154722.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 28. Lenoir M, Martín R, Torres-Maravilla E, et al. Butyrate mediates anti-inflammatory effects of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii in intestinal epithelial cells through Dact3. Gut Microbes 2020;12:1–16.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 29. Quévrain E, Maubert MA, Michon C, et al. Identification of an anti-inflammatory protein from Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, a commensal bacterium deficient in Crohn’s disease. Gut 2016;65:415–425.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 30. Rossi O, van Berkel LA, Chain F, et al. Faecalibacterium prausnitzii A2-165 has a high capacity to induce IL-10 in human and murine dendritic cells and modulates T cell responses. Sci Rep 2016;6:18507.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 31. Sarrabayrouse G, Bossard C, Chauvin JM, et al. CD4CD8αα lymphocytes, a novel human regulatory T cell subset induced by colonic bacteria and deficient in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. PLoS Biol 2014;12:e1001833.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 32. Salminen S, Collado MC, Endo A, et al. The International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of postbiotics. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;18:649–667.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 33. Michaudel C, Danne C, Agus A, et al. Rewiring the altered tryptophan metabolism as a novel therapeutic strategy in inflammatory bowel diseases. Gut 2023;72:1296–1307.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 34. Lavelle A, Sokol H. Gut microbiota-derived metabolites as key actors in inflammatory bowel disease. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;17:223–237.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 35. Couto MR, Gonçalves P, Magro F, Martel F. Microbiota-derived butyrate regulates intestinal inflammation: focus on inflammatory bowel disease. Pharmacol Res 2020;159:104947.ArticlePubMed
  • 36. Parada Venegas D, De la Fuente MK, Landskron G, et al. Short chain fatty acids (SCFAs)-mediated gut epithelial and immune regulation and its relevance for inflammatory bowel diseases. Front Immunol 2019;10:277.PubMedPMC
  • 37. Faber SC, Lahoti TS, Taylor ER, et al. Current therapeutic landscape and safety roadmap for targeting the aryl hydrocarbon receptor in inflammatory gastrointestinal indications. Cells 2022;11:1708.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 38. Alshammari ND, Elkanayati R, Vemula SK, et al. Advancements in colon-targeted drug delivery: a comprehensive review on recent techniques with emphasis on hot-melt extrusion and 3D printing technologies. AAPS PharmSciTech 2024;25:236.ArticlePubMedPDF

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Maternal gut microbial legacy shapes intestinal health and susceptibility of offspring to colitis
      Ji-Min Lee, Min-Ji Kim, Hoyul Lee, Yujin Hyun, Sung-Wook Nam, Dong-Gyu Jeon, Jae-Ho Shin, Eun Soo Kim
      npj Biofilms and Microbiomes.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis: From Pathophysiology to Novel Therapeutic Approaches (3rd Edition)
      Dingpei Long, Junsik J. Sung
      Biomedicines.2026; 14(5): 1068.     CrossRef
    • Microbiome-Based Therapies in Ulcerative Colitis: Mechanisms, Clinical Evidence, and a Precision-Medicine Framework
      Philippe Pinton
      Biomedicines.2026; 14(5): 969.     CrossRef
    • Current Understanding of Probiotic Strains and Immune Function: From Gut Microbiota to Systemic Immunity
      Maciej Piotr Szota, Katarzyna Napiórkowska-Baran, Aleksandra Wojtkiewicz, Lidia Wydeheft, Adam Wawrzeńczyk, Józef Sławatycki, Paweł Treichel, Ewa Alska, Barbara Zyśk, Krzysztof Pałgan
      International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2026; 27(10): 4527.     CrossRef
    • The potential role of the gut microbiota in the development of autoantibodies associated with Spondyloarthritis: a narrative review
      Alaa Elsaghir, Al-Hassan Soliman Wadan, Torsten Witte
      BMC Immunology.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Age-Related Microbial Differences in Newly Diagnosed Crohn’s Disease Reveal the Distinct Enrichment of Oral-Associated Taxa in Pediatric Patients
      Yun-Seok Jeong, Kyeong Ok Kim, Yong Eun Park, Yoo Jin Lee, Jeongkuk Seo, Tae-woo Kim, Bo-Hyung Kim, Sung-Vin Yim, Hyun Sik Kim, Jae-Yun Lee, Jin-Woo Bae, Byung-Ho Choe, Ben Kang, Chang Kyun Lee
      Gut and Liver.2026; 20(4): 575.     CrossRef
    • Gut microbiome: a key driver and therapeutic target of intestinal fibrosis in Crohn’s disease
      Jee Hyun Kim, Yoon Jeong Choi, Jun Hwan Yoo
      Intestinal Research.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Fructooligosaccharides supplementation associates with tolerogenic DC-Treg responses in a preventive model of DSS-induced colitis
      Shiyi Zhu, Kun Song, Anxin Jiang, Hong Wen, Senzhuo Feng, Xia Zhang, Xiangli Ye, Rushi Liu, Minjing Liao
      Journal of Functional Foods.2026; 145: 107460.     CrossRef
    • Synthetic microbial communities: emerging live biotherapeutics for targeted gut microbiome modulation
      Ru Zhang, Hongye Li, Chunfeng Wang, Guilian Yang
      Gut Microbes.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Gut microbiota-derived metabolites target C5AR1/KDM2A/HCAR3 axis in inflammatory bowel disease: a multi-machine learning algorithms and molecular docking study
      Shanshan Hu, Lin Fu, Jing Gao, Qiongya Guo, Shuangyin Han
      Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Poricoic acid A administered during DSS exposure attenuates acute colitis in mice and is accompanied by barrier-associated changes and endpoint fecal microbiota shifts
      Mei Wang, Kunkun Zhang, Danli Wang, Mingtao Cao, Rong Yong, Xiangqian Li, Wenyi Chen, Chengcheng Peng, Jiale Chang, Lu Fang, Feiyang Zhou, Yuyue Wan, Jingran Wang, Zhi Zhou, Lin Chen
      Journal of Natural Medicines.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Clinical‑microbiotic correlations in ulcerative colitis: bacterial and fungal taxa in disease relapse and remission
      A. D. Zubova, G. N. Tarasova
      South Russian Journal of Therapeutic Practice.2026; 7(3): 76.     CrossRef

    • PubReader PubReader
    • ePub LinkePub Link
    • Cite
      CITE
      export Copy Download
      Close
      Download Citation
      Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
      Format:
      • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
      • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
      Include:
      • Citation for the content below
      Targeting the gut microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease: from concept to clinical reality
      Intest Res. 2025;23(4):396-404.   Published online October 28, 2025
      DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2025.00104
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    Figure
    • 0
    • 1
    Related articles
    Targeting the gut microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease: from concept to clinical reality
    Image Image
    Fig. 1. Different types of strategies to target the gut microbiota in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). FMT, fecal microbiota transplantation; LBP, live biotherapeutic product; AIEC, adherent-invasive Escherichia coli.
    Fig. 2. Mechanisms underlying the anti-inflammatory effects of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. MAM, microbial anti-inflammatory molecule; NF-kB, nuclear factor-kappa B; IL-10, interleukin 10.

    Fig. 1.

    Fig. 2.

    Targeting the gut microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease: from concept to clinical reality

    Summary of the Various Microbiota-Targeted Therapies in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

    Advantages Disadvantages Clinical efficacy
    Antibiotics Easy to produce and to control Poor target precision
    Antibiotics resistance
    Toxicity    		 In specific settings
    Phages Relatively easy to produce
    Well defined product    		 Potential risk of resistance Ongoing studies
    Conventional probiotics Easy to produce and to control Target often unclear
    Mechanism of action often poorly defined    		 Moderate effects in some studies in UC
    FMT Feasible at small scale level
    Interesting for proof-of-concept study    		 Poor definition and control
    Undefined mechanism of action
    Poor standardization
    Challenging scalability    		 Effect demonstrated in multiple RCT in UC [3-7]
    Positive results in proof of concept study in CD [8]
    LBP Consortium Relatively well controlled Target often unclear
    Mechanism of action often poorly defined
    Production may be complex    		 Ongoing studies (e.g., VE202 in phase 2)
    LBP single strain Well defined product
    Mechanism of action usually well defined    		 Production may be complex Ongoing studies (e.g., Faecalibacterium prausnitzii in phase 2)
    Postbiotics Relatively easy to produce
    Well defined product
    Mechanism of action usually well defined    		 Formulation may be complex Ongoing studies

    UC, ulcerative colitis; FMT, fecal microbiota transplantation; RCT, randomized controlled trial; CD, Crohn’s disease; LBP, live biotherapeutic product.
    Table 1 Summary of the Various Microbiota-Targeted Therapies in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

    UC, ulcerative colitis; FMT, fecal microbiota transplantation; RCT, randomized controlled trial; CD, Crohn’s disease; LBP, live biotherapeutic product.

    Table 1

    Intest Res : Intestinal Research
    © Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases.
    Close layer
    TOP