Single fecal microbiota transplantation failed to change intestinal microbiota and had limited effectiveness against ulcerative colitis in Japanese patients

Shinta Mizuno; Kosaku Nanki; Katsuyoshi Matsuoka; Keiichiro Saigusa; Keiko Ono; Mari Arai; Shinya Sugimoto; Hiroki Kiyohara; Moeko Nakashima; Kozue Takeshita; Makoto Naganuma; Wataru Suda; Masahira Hattori; Takanori Kanai

doi:10.5217/ir.2017.15.1.68

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Intest Res > Volume 15(1); 2017 > Article

Original Article Single fecal microbiota transplantation failed to change intestinal microbiota and had limited effectiveness against ulcerative colitis in Japanese patients: Shinta Mizuno¹, Kosaku Nanki¹, Katsuyoshi Matsuoka¹, Keiichiro Saigusa¹, Keiko Ono¹, Mari Arai¹, Shinya Sugimoto¹, Hiroki Kiyohara¹, Moeko Nakashima¹, Kozue Takeshita^1,2, Makoto Naganuma¹, Wataru Suda^2,3, Masahira Hattori^3,4, Takanori Kanai¹; Intestinal Research 2017;15(1):68-74.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2017.15.1.68
Published online: January 31, 2017

¹Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

²Department of Immunology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

³Laboratory of Metagenomics, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Chiba, Japan.

⁴Graduate School of Advanced Science and Engineering, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan.

Correspondence to Takanori Kanai, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-8582, Japan. Tel: +81-3-3353-1211, Fax: +81-3-3341-3631, takagast@keio.jp

• Received: September 9, 2016 • Revised: October 3, 2016 • Accepted: October 14, 2016

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

8,171 Views
98 Download
26 Web of Science
27 Crossref
33 Scopus

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
Acknowledgments
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
NOTES
Supplementary Material
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background/Aims
Recent developments in analytical techniques including next-generation sequencing have clarified the correlation between intestinal microbiota and inflammatory bowel disease. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) is proposed as a potential approach to resolving their dysbiosis; however, its safety and efficacy have not been confirmed. This single-arm, open-label, non-randomized study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of FMT for Japanese patients with UC as the first registered clinical trial in Japan.
Methods
We enrolled 10 patients with active UC despite medical therapy. The donors were the patients' relatives and were carefully screened for infectious diseases. Fecal material was administered via colonoscopy, and the primary endpoint was the presence or absence of serious adverse events related to FMT. The secondary endpoint was a change in partial Mayo score at 12 weeks post-FMT. Scores ≤2 were considered a clinical response. Fecal samples were collected to follow changes in gut microbiota, while extracted complementary DNA were analyzed by a next-generation sequencer. We obtained written informed consent from all patients and donors. This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board and is registered in the University hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN 000012814).
Results
Five patients with moderate disease and five with severe disease were enrolled. No severe adverse effects were observed. One patient achieved clinical response; however, none of the patients' microbiota diversity recovered to the donor levels.
Conclusions
The use of single FMT for UC was safe; however, we failed to show its clinical efficacy and potential to change the intestinal microbiota.
Keywords: Colitis, ulcerative; Fecal microbiota transplantation; Dysbiosis

INTRODUCTION

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the colon and rectum that is induced by an inappropriate mucosal immunological response. The precise pathophysiology of UC is unclear, although this immunological dysregulation may correlate with changes in the colonic environment including the intestinal microbiota.1 2 3 4 Recent studies have shown that the composition of the microbiota in patients with UC differs from that in healthy controls and that microbiota imbalance, also known as “dysbiosis,” is associated with intestinal inflammation.5 Previous reports of murine models suggested that different populations of intestinal microbiota influence one another by proliferating in an identical environment and that the microbiota are remarkably stable. Garret et al.4 showed that wild-type mice developed colitis when co-housed with T-bet^-/-×RAG2^-/- UC mice, a spontaneously induced colitis model. Elinav et al.6 reported the same phenomenon when co-housing wild-type mice with ASC or NLRP6 knock-out mice, which disrupted the homeostasis of the intestinal mucus layer. These results showed that intestinal microbiota can be transplanted into genetically dissimilar mice in an identical environment and led to the hypotheses that resolving dysbiosis could potentially ameliorate colitis and that human fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) may be a method by which to accomplish this.

Several studies have shown that certain probiotics induce symbiosis in patients with UC;7 8 however, the meta-analysis of Mallon et al.9 suggested that probiotics do not induce remission in patients with active UC. This failure may result from the overwhelming difference in bacterial counts between probiotics and the human intestinal microbiota. To address this problem, much attention has been directed to human feces, which contain microbiota metabolites and much more varied bacteria than those contained in probiotics. Dysbiosis leads to impaired colonization resistance to microbial pathogens, while FMT is thought to induce the metabolic function and colonization resistance of the microbiota and recover the composition of the intestinal flora in patients with UC. In recurrent Clostridium difficile infections (rCDI), FMT had a much higher cure rate than standard antibiotic treatment.10 Additionally, previous reports showed that FMT might restore the intestinal microbial balance in human diseases.11 12 13 14 15

Almost all of the drugs currently developed for UC therapy, including biologics and tacrolimus, are immunosuppressive. These drugs play a pivotal role in IBD therapy; however, FMT may address different aspects of UC pathophysiology by resolving dysbiosis and improving UC therapy. Much effort has been involved in determining whether FMT is effective against patients with active UC.2 12 16 In Canada and the Netherlands, Moayyedi et al.17 reported that FMT induced remission in a significantly greater percentage of patients with active UC than did the placebo; however, Rossen et al.18 reported no statistically significant difference in clinical and endoscopic remission between UC patients who received fecal microbiota from a healthy donor and those who received their own fecal microbiota. Notably, recent reports showed that the gut microbiome in the Japanese population is considerably different from those of other populations.19 20 Thus, the authors suggest that there may be differences in the effectiveness of FMT for UC patients in Japan compared with that in other populations. A remaining concern is an open research problem regarding the safety and efficacy of FMT. Here we performed a single-arm, open-label, non-randomized study of the safety and efficacy of FMT. To our knowledge, this is the first registered study of FMT in UC in Japan and could help ensure the availability of FMT in Japanese patients with gastrointestinal disorders.

METHODS

1. Ethics

The ethics committee at Keio University School of Medicine approved the protocol (#20130383), and all participants provided written informed consent. The study was registered at the University hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Center (UMIN 000012814).

2. Study Design

In this single-center, open-label, non-randomized study, the safety and efficacy of FMT was evaluated in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC. Clinical follow-up was performed 12 weeks post-FMT. The primary endpoint of the study was at week 12.

3. Participants

1) Patients with UC

Eligible patients were aged ≥15 years with active UC defined as a Mayo Clinic score ≥4 with endoscopic Mayo Clinic score ≥1 despite treatment with corticosteroids, immunomodulators, tacrolimus, and/or anti-tumor necrosis factor agents. Concomitant treatments for UC, such as mesalamine, immunosuppressive therapy (e.g., azathioprine), or anti-tumor necrosis factor agents were permitted. Patients were excluded if their disease severity required hospitalization or if they were pregnant or unable to give informed consent.

2) Donors

Healthy relatives within the second-degree relationship (≥20 years of age) were screened using stool and serology screening for bacterial, parasitic, and viral pathogens. A complete overview of the donor screening process is shown in Table 1.

4. FMT Procedure

As we previously reported,21 the donors were instructed to collect a fecal sample in an AneroPack™ (Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Co., Inc., Tokyo, Japan) and bring the pack to the hospital at 4℃ on the day of the scheduled FMT. Approximately 50 to 300 g of feces was collected from donors, dissolved in 50 to 100 mL of saline, and filtered through a metal strainer to make a liquid slurry. Fecal materials were administered to the patient within 6 hours after collection by the donor via colonoscopy following standard bowel preparation (2 L polyethylene glycol solution).

5. Clinical Outcomes

The primary endpoint of the study was the presence or absence of serious adverse events related to FMT. The secondary endpoint was a change in the partial Mayo (pMayo) score 12 weeks after FMT. Scores ≤2 were considered a clinical response

6. Fecal Sample Collection

Fecal samples were longitudinally collected from patients at weeks 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 post-FMT and from donors on the day of the FMT. In total, 58 fecal samples were collected from 10 patients, and the collected fresh feces were stored under anaerobic conditions in an AneroPack™ (Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Co., Inc.) at 4℃. Within 24 hours after sampling, the feces were frozen in 20% glycerol (Wako Pure Chemical Industries Ltd., Osaka, Japan)/phosphate-buffered saline solution (Life Technologies, Tokyo, Japan) by liquid nitrogen and stored at −80℃ until use.

7. Recovery of Bacteria from Fecal Samples and Bacterial DNA Isolation

Bacterial DNA were isolated as described previously.19 Briefly, bacterial DNA was isolated by the enzymatic lysis method using lysozyme (Sigma-Aldrich Co., LCC., Tokyo, Japan) and achromopeptidase (Wako Pure Chemical Industries Ltd.). DNA samples were then purified by treatment with ribonuclease A (Wako Pure Chemical Industries Ltd.), followed by precipitation with 20% polyethylene glycol solution (PEG6000 in 2.5 M sodium chloride). The DNA was then pelleted by centrifugation, rinsed with 75% ethanol, and dissolved in tris-EDTA buffer.

8. Sequencing and Processing of Bacterial 16S rRNA Gene from the Fecal DNA

The fecal DNA samples were sequenced using the 454 GS FLX Titanium and FLX₊ (Roche, Basel, Switzerland) sequencing system. The detailed protocols were described previously.19 Briefly, the 16S rRNA gene V1 to V2 region was amplified by PCR by using the primers 27Fmod and 338R containing 454 primer sequences A and B and a unique 10-bp barcode sequence in 27Fmod. The PCR amplicons were sequenced to obtain reads, and the reads with an average quality value <25, mismatches to both universal primers, and possible chimeric reads were removed. Among the high-quality reads, 3,000 reads per sample were randomly selected and grouped into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) by clustering using the UCLUST algorithm with a 96% identity threshold. Taxonomic assignments for each OTU were made by similarity search against the public 16S and National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) genome databases using the GLSEARCH program. For assignment at the phylum, family, genus, and species levels, sequence similarity thresholds of 70%, 90%, 94%, and 96%, respectively, were employed. All of the high-quality 16S V1 to V2 sequences analyzed in this study were deposited into the DNA Data-Bank of Japan (DDBJ)/GenBank/ European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) database under accession number DRA004886. UniFrac distance and principal coordinate analysis were used to assess the similarity of the microbiota structure of each pair of samples.22

9. Statistical Analysis

Results are expressed as mean±SEM. Groups of data were compared using Student t-test. For multiple comparisons, the statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA test and the Tukey-Kramer test. Differences were considered statistically significant when the P-value was <0.05. All of the analyses were conducted using GraphPad Prism Software version 6 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA).

RESULTS

1. Patient Recruitment

We recruited 10 patients from March 2014 through October 2015, including three with mild disease and seven with moderate disease. Patients' baseline and clinical characteristics are shown in Table 2. All patients had a history of immunosuppressive treatment, while six were naïve to biologics treatment.

2. Donor Screening

Screening of 12 healthy subjects for stool pathogens and serology resulted in 10 eligible donors; two were excluded because of positive screening results for infectious agents in their feces. Donors comprised two spouses, four parents, and four sisters. All donors donated feces that were used for patient infusion. The donors' mean age was 45 years (range, 31–66 years), of which four were male.

3. Clinical Outcomes

Previous studies reported serious adverse events following FMT, including small bowel perforation, cytomegalovirus infection, and carcinoma. In our study, two patients required additional therapy during the 12 weeks following FMT; however, no severe FMT-associated adverse event was observed except for exacerbation of the UC itself. Six patients showed exacerbation of colitis and three showed amelioration of colitis. Only one patient (“J” in Fig. 1A) showed a clinical response (pMayo score pre-FMT, 4; post-FMT, 1). Two other patients (“D” and “E” in Fig. 1A) did not satisfy the definition of clinical response. Overall, no significant difference was found between the pre-FMT and post-FMT pMayo scores (Fig. 1). These results suggested that our single FMT protocol was safe; however, it had limited effectiveness for active UC.

4. Assessment and Analysis of the Microbiome

Intestinal microbial profiling was conducted by extracting genomic DNA from the patient and donor fecal samples using the protocol described above. Fifty-nine samples were collected from the 10 patients and 10 samples were collected from the 10 donors.

Comparison of the donor and patient samples at baseline revealed that the diversity index of the fecal microbiota in the healthy donors showed higher diversity than that of the patients, although there was no significant difference (P=0.11). The diversity of the microbiota in the patients' samples increased slightly at the 12-week post-FMT evaluation; however, the findings were not significant (P=0.29) (Fig. 2A).

The taxonomic profiles showed that the phylum Firmicutes was dominant in almost all of the donors and patients with no significant difference among them. The taxonomic profiles of the patient samples showed no significant change pre-FMT versus post-FMT (Fig. 2B, Supplementary Fig. 1). Interestingly, the abundance of Bifidobacterium longum was restored in patients with active UC following FMT; however, there was no significant difference pre-FMT versus post-FMT (P=0.08) (Fig. 2C, Supplementary Fig. 2). Redundancy analysis showed that the microbiota composition of donors overlapped with that of patients at baseline and at 12 weeks post-FMT (Supplementary Fig. 3). These results indicate that the single FMT via colonoscopy for patients with UC was conducted safe; however, it had limited clinical effectiveness and potential to change the intestinal microbiota.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first registered trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of FMT in Japan. Our results suggest that FMT for patients with UC was safe; however, we failed to show its clinical efficacy. The limitation of our study design was the sample size; however, the ethics committee at our institution asked us to prioritize the safety evaluation over the efficacy evaluation. Thus, this being the first registered trial in Japan, we concluded the including >10 patients would be unethical.

Analysis of intestinal microbiota showed that the abundance of B. longum tended to be lower in UC patients than in healthy subjects. Our results showed a trend toward an increase in B. longum after FMT; however, whether FMT induced symbiosis in UC patients is unclear.

A previous report showed that B. longum altered gut luminal biotin and butyrate metabolism by modifying the gut microbial community.23 Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) including butyrate are produced by the fermentation of dietary fiber by intestinal microbiota, and several reports have shown that SCFAs could induce gut homeostasis.24 25 These findings suggest that FMT can change the gut microbial community by altering SCFA metabolism. We failed to show a relationship between an abundance of B. longum and clinical improvement following FMT; however, previous reports showed that B. longum alleviated experimental colitis in murine models.26 27 28 Additionally, Tamaki et al.29 concluded that supplementation with B. longum was well tolerated and reduced the UC disease activity index.

In this study, we administered donor feces only once, reflecting our primary endpoint of evaluating FMT safety. Moayyedi et al.17 reported that FMT could induce remission in patients with active UC; however, the authors gave retention enemas to patients once per week for 6 weeks. Therefore, the frequency of our FMT protocol may be a major limitation for inducing remission in active UC patients. In addition to FMT frequency, donor selection is a critical issue. We selected donors from among patients' relatives, although Moayyedi et al.17 stated that most FMT successes were related to the use of unrelated donor specimens. Previous reports showed that the intestinal microbiota reflect one's living environment and diet,30 indicating that relatives may have similar intestinal microbiota. A varied microbiota is vital to the induction of symbiosis in patients with UC; therefore, the ideal donors in future FMT studies would be healthy volunteers unrelated to the patient.

Further evaluations are needed to elucidate the efficacy of FMT for UC; however, this form of clinical development with high ethical concerns should be very fairly and carefully performed until its safety is confirmed. Nevertheless, FMT for patients with UC seems to have positively received much attention in recent years despite the lack of definite evidence due to the influence of the great success of rCDI. Thus, we believe that the current negative study plays a pivotal role in cautioning researchers to carefully pursue the clinical development of FMT for different diseases, nations, and protocols.

Acknowledgments

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank A. Hayashi and M. Mutaguchi (Keio University) for their technical assistance and helpful discussions. The authors also thank Y. Nakazato, R. Bessho, H. Ogata, and Y. Iwao (Keio University) for their helpful discussions.

NOTES

Financial support: This study was supported in part by Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants for research on intractable diseases from the Japanese Ministry of Health (T.K.) and Takeda Science Foundation (S.M.).

Conflict of interest: None.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Fig. 1

Taxonomic profiles. Each donor and each patient pre- (0 week), and 1, 2, 4, and 12 weeks post-fecal microbiota transplantation.

ir-15-68-s001.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 2

Abundance of Bifidobacterium longum in donors and patients pre- and 12 weeks post-fecal microbiota transplantation. OUT, operational taxonomic unit.

ir-15-68-s002.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 3

Redundancy analysis of microbiota from donors and patients pre- and 12 weeks post-fecal microbiota transplantation.

ir-15-68-s003.pdf

REFERENCES

1. Nagao-Kitamoto H, Kitamoto S, Kuffa P, Kamada N. Pathogenic role of the gut microbiota in gastrointestinal diseases. Intest Res 2016;14:127–138.PMID: 27175113.Article PubMed PMC
2. Damman CJ, Miller SI, Surawicz CM, Zisman TL. The microbiome and inflammatory bowel disease: is there a therapeutic role for fecal microbiota transplantation? Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:1452–1459.PMID: 23034604.Article PubMed PDF
3. Kaser A, Zeissig S, Blumberg RS. Inflammatory bowel disease. Annu Rev Immunol 2010;28:573–621.PMID: 20192811.Article PubMed PMC
4. Garrett WS, Lord GM, Punit S, et al. Communicable ulcerative colitis induced by T-bet deficiency in the innate immune system. Cell 2007;131:33–45.PMID: 17923086.Article PubMed PMC
5. Takaishi H, Matsuki T, Nakazawa A, et al. Imbalance in intestinal microflora constitution could be involved in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. Int J Med Microbiol 2008;298:463–472.PMID: 17897884.Article PubMed
6. Elinav E, Strowig T, Kau AL, et al. NLRP6 inflammasome regulates colonic microbial ecology and risk for colitis. Cell 2011;145:745–757.PMID: 21565393.Article PubMed PMC
7. Chen WX, Ren LH, Shi RH. Enteric microbiota leads to new therapeutic strategies for ulcerative colitis. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:15657–15663.PMID: 25400449.Article PubMed PMC
8. Gassull MA. Review article: the intestinal lumen as a therapeutic target in inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006;24(Suppl 3): 90–95.PMID: 16961752.Article PubMed
9. Mallon P, McKay D, Kirk S, Gardiner K. Probiotics for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(4): CD005573PMID: 10.1002/14651858.CD005573.pub2. PMID: 17943867.Article PubMed
10. van Nood E, Vrieze A, Nieuwdorp M, et al. Duodenal infusion of donor feces for recurrent Clostridium difficile. N Engl J Med 2013;368:407–415.PMID: 23323867.Article PubMed
11. Angelberger S, Reinisch W, Makristathis A, et al. Temporal bacterial community dynamics vary among ulcerative colitis patients after fecal microbiota transplantation. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:1620–1630.PMID: 24060759.Article PubMed PDF
12. Kump PK, Gröchenig HP, Lackner S, et al. Alteration of intestinal dysbiosis by fecal microbiota transplantation does not induce remission in patients with chronic active ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2013;19:2155–2165.PMID: 23899544.Article PubMed
13. Vrieze A, de Groot PF, Kootte RS, Knaapen M, van Nood E, Nieuwdorp M. Fecal transplant: a safe and sustainable clinical therapy for restoring intestinal microbial balance in human disease? Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2013;27:127–137.PMID: 23768558.Article PubMed
14. Seekatz AM, Aas J, Gessert CE, et al. Recovery of the gut microbiome following fecal microbiota transplantation. MBio 2014;5:e00893–e00914.PMID: 10.1128/mBio.00893-14. PMID: 24939885.Article PubMed PMC
15. Weingarden AR, Chen C, Bobr A, et al. Microbiota transplantation restores normal fecal bile acid composition in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2014;306:G310–G319.PMID: 24284963.Article PubMed
16. Colman RJ, Rubin DT. Fecal microbiota transplantation as therapy for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Crohns Colitis 2014;8:1569–1581.PMID: 25223604.Article PubMed PMC
17. 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.PMID: 25857665.Article PubMed
18. 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.PMID: 25836986.Article PubMed
19. Nishijima S, Suda W, Oshima K, et al. The gut microbiome of healthy Japanese and its microbial and functional uniqueness. DNA Res 2016;23:125–133.PMID: 26951067.Article PubMed PMC PDF
20. Kurokawa K, Itoh T, Kuwahara T, et al. Comparative metagenomics revealed commonly enriched gene sets in human gut microbiomes. DNA Res 2007;14:169–181.PMID: 17916580.Article PubMed PMC PDF
21. Matsuoka K, Mizuno S, Hayashi A, Hisamatsu T, Naganuma M, Kanai T. Fecal microbiota transplantation for gastrointestinal diseases. Keio J Med 2014;63:69–74.PMID: 25500625.Article PubMed
22. Lozupone C, Lladser ME, Knights D, Stombaugh J, Knight R. UniFrac: an effective distance metric for microbial community comparison. ISME J 2011;5:169–172.PMID: 20827291.Article PubMed PDF
23. Sugahara H, Odamaki T, Fukuda S, et al. Probiotic Bifidobacterium longum alters gut luminal metabolism through modification of the gut microbial community. Sci Rep 2015;5:13548PMID: 10.1038/srep13548. PMID: 26315217.Article PubMed PMC PDF
24. Kim MH, Kang SG, Park JH, Yanagisawa M, Kim CH. Short-chain fatty acids activate GPR41 and GPR43 on intestinal epithelial cells to promote inflammatory responses in mice. Gastroenterology 2013;145:396–406.e10.PMID: 23665276.Article PubMed
25. Masui R, Sasaki M, Funaki Y, et al. G protein-coupled receptor 43 moderates gut inflammation through cytokine regulation from mononuclear cells. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2013;19:2848–2856.PMID: 24141712.Article PubMed
26. Miyauchi E, Ogita T, Miyamoto J, et al. Bifidobacterium longum alleviates dextran sulfate sodium-induced colitis by suppressing IL-17A response: involvement of intestinal epithelial costimulatory molecules. PLoS One 2013;8:e79735PMID: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079735. PMID: 24255712.Article PubMed PMC
27. Srutkova D, Schwarzer M, Hudcovic T, et al. Bifidobacterium longum CCM 7952 promotes epithelial barrier function and prevents acute DSS-induced colitis in strictly strain-specific manner. PLoS One 2015;10:e0134050PMID: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134050. PMID: 26218526.Article PubMed PMC
28. Wei P, Yang Y, Ding Q, et al. Oral delivery of Bifidobacterium longum expressing alpha-melanocyte-stimulating hormone to combat ulcerative colitis. J Med Microbiol 2016;65:160–168.PMID: 26567174.Article PubMed
29. Tamaki H, Nakase H, Inoue S, et al. Efficacy of probiotic treatment with Bifidobacterium longum 536 for induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled multicenter trial. Dig Endosc 2016;28:67–74.PMID: 26418574.Article PubMed
30. Nakayama J, Watanabe K, Jiang J, et al. Diversity in gut bacterial community of school-age children in Asia. Sci Rep 2015;5:8397PMID: 25703686.Article PubMed PMC PDF

Fig. 1

Change in partial Mayo (pMayo) score. (A) Change in pMayo score in each patient, and (B) comparison of pMayo score pre- and 12 weeks post-fecal microbiota transplantation.

Fig. 2

Analysis of the microbiome. (A) Microbiota diversity (Shannon index) of donors and patients pre- and 12 weeks post-fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). (B) Comparison of the top four fecal bacteria at the phylum level, and (C) the top five fecal bacteria at the species level comparing pre- and post-FMT. The average operational taxonomic unit abundance is shown for each group.

Table 1

Overview of Donor Screening Process

Serological	Stool	Past history
HAV/IgM	Fecal immunochemical test (twice)	Antibiotic treatment during 1 month
HBsAg	Clostridium difficile toxin A/B	IBD, IBS, chronic constipation/diarrhea
Anti-HCV	Culture for enteric pathogens	Malignancy
Human immunodeficiency virus 1 and 2 enzyme immunoassay	Ova and parasite examination	Autoimmune or atopic illness or ongoing immune-modulating therapy
Antibody to Entamoeba histolytica		Severe obesity
Rapid plasma regain		Severe liver/kidney dysfunction

Table 2

Patients' Baseline Characteristics

Variable	Value
Age (yr)	31 (17–48)
Male:female	7:03
Disease duration (yr)	4.5 (1–15)
Disease type
Relapsing-remitting	5 (50)
Chronic persistent	5 (50)
Mayo score	6.1 (4–8)
Extent of disease^a
Proctitis	1 (10)
Left-sided	2 (20)
Extensive colitis	7 (70)
Concomitant drug treatment
5-ASA	7 (70)
Thiopurine	5 (50)
Biologics	2 (20)
Biologics	1 (10)

Values are presented as median (range) or number (%).

^aThe Montreal classification was used to classify the disease extent.

5-ASA, 5-aminosalicylic acid.

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Single-Donor and Pooling Strategies for Fecal Microbiota Transfer Product Preparation in Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Benoît Levast, Mathieu Fontaine, Stéphane Nancey, Pierre Dechelotte, Joël Doré, Philippe Lehert
Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology.2023; 14(5): e00568. CrossRef
Recipient-independent, high-accuracy FMT-response prediction and optimization in mice and humans
Oshrit Shtossel, Sondra Turjeman, Alona Riumin, Michael R. Goldberg, Arnon Elizur, Yarin Bekor, Hadar Mor, Omry Koren, Yoram Louzoun
Microbiome.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Transfer of FRozen Encapsulated multi-donor Stool filtrate for active ulcerative Colitis (FRESCO): study protocol for a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial
Andreas Stallmach, Philip Grunert, Johannes Stallhofer, Bettina Löffler, Michael Baier, Jürgen Rödel, Michael Kiehntopf, Sophie Neugebauer, Dietmar H. Pieper, Howard Junca, Andrea Tannapfel, Ute Merkel, Ulrike Schumacher, Maria Breternitz-Gruhne, Tabitha
Trials.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of fecal microbiota transplantation for the treatment of ulcerative colitis
Taobi Huang, Jinlan Xu, Maoying Wang, Ke Pu, Longquan Li, Huiyun Zhang, Yuan Liang, Weiming Sun, Yuping Wang
Medicine.2022; 101(30): e29790. CrossRef
Hot topics on fecal microbiota transplantation for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease
Xiaochen Zhang, Dai Ishikawa, Toshifumi Ohkusa, Shinji Fukuda, Akihito Nagahara
Frontiers in Medicine.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
The Effects of Multi-Donor Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Capsules Combined with Thalidomide on Hormone-Dependent Ulcerative Colitis
Xiao-He Guo, Yan-Li Zhu, Lu Yang, Wen-Jing Li, Xue-Fang Du
Infection and Drug Resistance.2022; Volume 15: 7495. CrossRef
Fecal microbiota transplantation for ulcerative colitis
Katsuyoshi Matsuoka
Immunological Medicine.2021; 44(1): 30. CrossRef
Bacteriotherapy for inflammatory bowel disease
Yusuke Yoshimatsu, Yohei Mikami, Takanori Kanai
Inflammation and Regeneration.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Repeated Fecal Microbial Transplantations and Antibiotic Pre-Treatment Are Linked to Improved Clinical Response and Remission in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Pooled Proportion Meta-Analysis
Valentin Mocanu, Sabitha Rajaruban, Jerry Dang, Janice Y. Kung, Edward C. Deehan, Karen L. Madsen
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2021; 10(5): 959. CrossRef
Current status, complications and prospects of fecal microbiota transplantation therapy
Ohara Tadashi
Archives of Pathology and Clinical Research.2021; 5(1): 004. CrossRef
Fecal Microbial Transplantation in Critically Ill Patients—Structured Review and Perspectives
Ivana Cibulková, Veronika Řehořová, Jan Hajer, František Duška
Biomolecules.2021; 11(10): 1459. CrossRef
Abnormal Intestinal Microbiome in Medical Disorders and Potential Reversibility by Fecal Microbiota Transplantation
Herbert L. DuPont, Zhi-Dong Jiang, Andrew W. DuPont, Netanya S. Utay
Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2020; 65(3): 741. CrossRef
Gut microbiota in ulcerative colitis: insights on pathogenesis and treatment
Xiao Yan Guo, Xin Juan Liu, Jian Yu Hao
Journal of Digestive Diseases.2020; 21(3): 147. CrossRef
Fecal microbiota transplantation in inflammatory bowel disease patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Luciane de Fátima Caldeira, Helena H. Borba, Fernanda S. Tonin, Astrid Wiens, Fernando Fernandez-Llimos, Roberto Pontarolo, Udai P. Singh
PLOS ONE.2020; 15(9): e0238910. CrossRef
Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Ulcerative Colitis: An Evolving Therapy
Ajit Sood, Arshdeep Singh, Vandana Midha, Ramit Mahajan, Dina Kao, David T Rubin, Charles N Bernstein
Crohn's & Colitis 360.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
Efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation for treating patients with ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Hai Lan Zhao, Shu Zhen Chen, Hao Ming Xu, You Lian Zhou, Jie He, Hong Li Huang, Jing Xu, Yu Qiang Nie
Journal of Digestive Diseases.2020; 21(10): 534. CrossRef
Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Intestinal Disorders: A Primer for Physicians
Ajit Sood, Vandana Midha, Harmeet Kaur, Arshdeep Singh
Journal of Gastrointestinal Infections.2020; 10(1): 16. CrossRef
Multi-session fecal microbiota transplantation using colonoscopy has favorable outcomes for the treatment of steroid-dependent ulcerative colitis
Young-Seok Cho
Intestinal Research.2019; 17(1): 6. CrossRef
RecurrentClostridium difficileInfection: Risk Factors, Treatment, and Prevention
Jung Hoon Song, You Sun Kim
Gut and Liver.2019; 13(1): 16. CrossRef
1) Microbiota and Gastrointestinal Diseases
Takanori Kanai
Nihon Naika Gakkai Zasshi.2019; 108(3): 401. CrossRef
Fecal microbial transplantation
Sonia Bouri, Ailsa Hart
Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care.2018; 21(5): 405. CrossRef
The Value of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Yantian Cao, Bangjie Zhang, Yuanyuan Wu, Qingzhi Wang, Jie Wang, Fangfang Shen
Gastroenterology Research and Practice.2018; 2018: 1. CrossRef
Gut microbiota‐immune‐brain interactions in chemotherapy‐associated behavioral comorbidities
Kelley R. Jordan, Brett R. Loman, Michael T. Bailey, Leah M. Pyter
Cancer.2018; 124(20): 3990. CrossRef
Current Evidence for the Management of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Using Fecal Microbiota Transplantation
Seong Ran Jeon, Jocelyn Chai, Christiana Kim, Christine H. Lee
Current Infectious Disease Reports.2018;[Epub] CrossRef
Is there a potential role of fecal microbiota transplantation in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease?
Chang Soo Eun
Intestinal Research.2017; 15(2): 145. CrossRef
Bifidobacterium-Rich Fecal Donor May Be a Positive Predictor for Successful Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Shinta Mizuno, Tatsuhiro Masaoka, Makoto Naganuma, Taishiro Kishimoto, Momoko Kitazawa, Shunya Kurokawa, Moeko Nakashima, Kozue Takeshita, Wataru Suda, Masaru Mimura, Masahira Hattori, Takanori Kanai
Digestion.2017; 96(1): 29. CrossRef
Intestinal immune response is regulated by gut microbe
Shun TANEMOTO, Tomohisa SUJINO, Takanori KANAI
Japanese Journal of Clinical Immunology.2017; 40(6): 408. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; 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
Citation and abstract for the content below

Single fecal microbiota transplantation failed to change intestinal microbiota and had limited effectiveness against ulcerative colitis in Japanese patients

Intest Res. 2017;15(1):68-74. Published online January 31, 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2017.15.1.68

XML Download

Figure

Single fecal microbiota transplantation failed to change intestinal microbiota and had limited effectiveness against ulcerative colitis in Japanese patients

Fig. 1 Change in partial Mayo (pMayo) score. (A) Change in pMayo score in each patient, and (B) comparison of pMayo score pre- and 12 weeks post-fecal microbiota transplantation.

Fig. 2 Analysis of the microbiome. (A) Microbiota diversity (Shannon index) of donors and patients pre- and 12 weeks post-fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). (B) Comparison of the top four fecal bacteria at the phylum level, and (C) the top five fecal bacteria at the species level comparing pre- and post-FMT. The average operational taxonomic unit abundance is shown for each group.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Single fecal microbiota transplantation failed to change intestinal microbiota and had limited effectiveness against ulcerative colitis in Japanese patients

Table 1

Overview of Donor Screening Process

Serological	Stool	Past history
HAV/IgM	Fecal immunochemical test (twice)	Antibiotic treatment during 1 month
HBsAg	Clostridium difficile toxin A/B	IBD, IBS, chronic constipation/diarrhea
Anti-HCV	Culture for enteric pathogens	Malignancy
Human immunodeficiency virus 1 and 2 enzyme immunoassay	Ova and parasite examination	Autoimmune or atopic illness or ongoing immune-modulating therapy
Antibody to Entamoeba histolytica		Severe obesity
Rapid plasma regain		Severe liver/kidney dysfunction

Table 2

Patients' Baseline Characteristics

Variable	Value
Age (yr)	31 (17–48)
Male:female	7:03
Disease duration (yr)	4.5 (1–15)
Disease type
Relapsing-remitting	5 (50)
Chronic persistent	5 (50)
Mayo score	6.1 (4–8)
Extent of disease^a
Proctitis	1 (10)
Left-sided	2 (20)
Extensive colitis	7 (70)
Concomitant drug treatment
5-ASA	7 (70)
Thiopurine	5 (50)
Biologics	2 (20)
Biologics	1 (10)

Values are presented as median (range) or number (%).

^aThe Montreal classification was used to classify the disease extent.

5-ASA, 5-aminosalicylic acid.

Table 1 Overview of Donor Screening Process

Table 2 Patients' Baseline Characteristics

Values are presented as median (range) or number (%).

^aThe Montreal classification was used to classify the disease extent.

5-ASA, 5-aminosalicylic acid.