3.8 Review

Impact of microbiota in colorectal carcinogenesis: lessons from experimental models

Journal

INTESTINAL RESEARCH
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 346-357

Publisher

KOREAN ASSOC STUDY INTESTINAL DISEASES
DOI: 10.5217/ir.2018.16.3.346

Keywords

Colorectal neoplasms; Microbiota dysbiosis; Mucosa-associated bacteria; Pathobiont; Virulence

Funding

  1. National Health Research Institute, Taiwan [NHRI-EX105-10520BI, NHRI-EX106-10520BI, NHRI-EX107-10520BI]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology [MoST 106-2320-B-002-017]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A role of gut microbiota in colorectal cancer (CRC) growth was first suggested in germ-free rats almost 50 years ago, and the existence of disease-associated bacteria (termed pathobionts) had becoming increasingly evident from experimental data of fecal transplantation, and microbial gavage or monoassociation. Altered bacterial compositions in fecal and mucosal specimens were observed in CRC patients compared to healthy subjects. Microbial fluctuations were found at various cancer stages; an increase of bacterial diversity was noted in the adenoma specimens, while a reduction of bacterial richness was documented in CRC samples. The bacterial species enriched in the human cancerous tissues included Escherichia coli, Fusobacterium nucleatum, and enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis. The causal relationship of gut bacteria in tumorigenesis was established by introducing particular bacterial strains in in situ mouse CRC models. Detailed experimental protocols of bacterial gavage and the advantages and caveats of different experimental models are summarized in this review. The microbial genotoxins, enterotoxins, and virulence factors implicated in the mechanisms of bacteria-driven tumorigenesis are described. In conclusion, intestinal microbiota is involved in colon tumorigenesis. Bacteria-targeting intervention would be the next challenge for CRC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available