4.8 Article

Computer-guided design of optimal microbial consortia for immune system modulation

期刊

ELIFE
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELIFE SCIENCES PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.30916

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [P41 GM103504]
  2. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [HR0011-15-C-0094]
  3. Human Frontier Science Program [RGP00055/2015]
  4. Takeda Science Foundation
  5. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [5R01 GM106303]
  6. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development
  7. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [R15-AI112985-01A1]
  8. National Science Foundation [1458347]
  9. Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology
  10. Brigham and Women's Hospital
  11. Div Of Biological Infrastructure
  12. Direct For Biological Sciences [1458347] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Manipulation of the gut microbiota holds great promise for the treatment of diseases. However, a major challenge is the identification of therapeutically potent microbial consortia that colonize the host effectively while maximizing immunologic outcome. Here, we propose a novel workflow to select optimal immune-inducing consortia from microbiome compositicon and immune effectors measurements. Using published and newly generated microbial and regulatory T-cell (T-reg) data from germ-free mice, we estimate the contributions of twelve Clostridia strains with known immune-modulating effect to T-reg induction. Combining this with a longitudinal data-constrained ecological model, we predict the ability of every attainable and ecologically stable subconsortium in promoting T-reg activation and rank them by the T-reg Induction Score (TrIS). Experimental validation of selected consortia indicates a strong and statistically significant correlation between predicted TrIS and measured T-reg. We argue that computational indexes, such as the TrIS, are valuable tools for the systematic selection of immune-modulating bacteriotherapeutics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据