Next Article in Journal
Does Adherence to Treatment Guidelines from the Ghailane–Gille Classification for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis of the Lumbar Spine Impact Surgical Outcomes? A Match–Mismatch Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Teams, Tools, Processes and Resources to Manage Oncologic Clinical Decision Support: Lessons Learned from City of Hope’s Multistate, Academic, and Community Oncology Enterprise
Previous Article in Journal
Clinical Practice Preferences for Glaucoma Surgery in Japan in 2024
Previous Article in Special Issue
Electronic-Medical-Record-Driven Machine Learning Predictive Model for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries: Development and External Validation
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Operationalizing Team Science at the Academic Cancer Center Network to Unveil the Structure and Function of the Gut Microbiome

by
Kevin J. McDonnell
Center for Precision Medicine, Department of Medical Oncology & Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA 91010, USA
J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(6), 2040; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14062040
Submission received: 17 January 2025 / Revised: 28 February 2025 / Accepted: 5 March 2025 / Published: 17 March 2025

Abstract

:
Oncologists increasingly recognize the microbiome as an important facilitator of health as well as a contributor to disease, including, specifically, cancer. Our knowledge of the etiologies, mechanisms, and modulation of microbiome states that ameliorate or promote cancer continues to evolve. The progressive refinement and adoption of “omic” technologies (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics) and utilization of advanced computational methods accelerate this evolution. The academic cancer center network, with its immediate access to extensive, multidisciplinary expertise and scientific resources, has the potential to catalyze microbiome research. Here, we review our current understanding of the role of the gut microbiome in cancer prevention, predisposition, and response to therapy. We underscore the promise of operationalizing the academic cancer center network to uncover the structure and function of the gut microbiome; we highlight the unique microbiome-related expert resources available at the City of Hope of Comprehensive Cancer Center as an example of the potential of team science to achieve novel scientific and clinical discovery.

1. Introduction

We exist in a state of mutualism with an array of microorganisms that have co-evolved with us to thrive within specific biological niches throughout the human body [1,2,3]. The gut colonic niche stands apart as the largest and most diverse reservoir of microbiota in the human body [4,5]. To the degree that the microbiome influences our health and disease predisposition, arguably, the gut microbiome exerts the greatest influence [6,7,8]; these effects may include cancer prevention and predisposition, as well as the modulation of the cancer therapeutic response [9,10]. Therefore, attaining a better understanding of gut microbiome composition and associated biological effects may reveal new approaches to mitigating risk and improving clinical outcomes [11,12].
Innovations in technology and basic science research have made possible a rapid expansion of our knowledge of the gut microbiome. Emerging capabilities in the computational sciences, specifically systems biology and artificial intelligence, promise continued mechanistic and therapeutic discoveries. Academic clinical cancer networks, with their care of diverse cancer populations, access to advanced, core experimental facilities, and concentration of pioneering scientific experts, serve as natural accelerators and efficient incubators of microbiome research. In this review, we examine current knowledge of the gut microbiome, explore recent innovations in microbiome research, and, finally, focus on the facilitative role of the academic cancer center network in advancing microbiome investigation through a description of resources and research initiatives at the City of Hope (COH) Comprehensive Cancer Center.

2. States of the Gut Microbiome in Health and Disease

The human colon hosts a staggeringly large and diverse population of bacteria [13,14]. Our bodies provide these bacteria a stable, homeostatic environment that furnishes secure residence, a source of nutrients, opportunity for growth, and space for reproduction [15,16]. In return, from these bacteria, we derive essential cofactors, critical metabolites, and beneficial end products of digestion [11,17,18]. Moreover, these bacteria exert salutary immunological and genetic modulatory effects and inhibit the colonization of competing pathogenic bacteria [19,20,21]. The coevolution of the “seed” (gut bacteria) and “soil” (the human gut) of the gastrointestinal tract produces an optimized state of bacterial growth and mutual benefit: eubiosis (Figure 1).
Together, seed and soil conditions shape the microbial composition of eubiosis. The establishment of eubiosis begins at birth with the initial seeding of a sterile, abacterial gastrointestinal tract [22,23]. Depending on the mode of delivery at birth, vaginal versus cesarean section, the colon will acquire a microbiome predominated by bacteria of the Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes phyla (vaginal delivery) or Firmicutes and Actinomycetota phyla (cesarean section) [24,25]. Subsequent breast- or bottle-feeding results in the colonization by Bifidobacterium species with significant numbers of either Enterobacteriaceae (bottle-feeding) or Lactobacillus (breastfeeding) species [26,27]. By two years of age, however, these bacterial populations converge towards a mature, eubiotic bacterial population comprising predominantly species from the Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes phyla with Faecalibacterium Prausnitzil representing the most common species in the adult colon [28,29].
Eubiosis requires maintenance and remains vulnerable to disruption—compromise of eubiosis produces dysbiosis. Numerous factors contribute to dysbiosis; exposure to toxic agents, antibiotics, and nocuous dietary components may eradicate native, beneficial bacterial populations allowing pathogenic bacteria to proliferate in their place [30,31,32]. For example, prolonged or multiple episodes of antibiotic use diminish Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes populations, allowing dysbiotic populations, e.g., Clostridium Difficile, to proliferate, potentially resulting in serious gut pathology [33,34,35]; restoration of eubiotic bacterial populations may necessitate active intervention [36,37]. Dysbiosis, if extreme and not corrected, produces severe health sequelae.

3. The Impact of Gut Microbiome Dysbiosis on Cancer Predisposition, Treatment Toxicity, and Therapeutic Efficacy

Extreme shifts in the gut microbiome population cause dysbiosis and, potentially, oncobiosis; investigations associate gut oncobiosis with increased cancer predisposition, more frequent and severe drug side effects, and attenuated clinical effectiveness of treatment [38,39,40,41,42].
The microbiome alters mechanisms of cancer initiation and progression through the modulation of several fundamental gut-associated activities such as inflammatory control, immune function, maintenance of genomic integrity, and epigenetic regulation [43,44]. Key bacterial populations play critical roles in accomplishing these activities and influencing cancer predisposition. Previous studies have identified specific colon cancer-promoting Escherichia coli, Bacteroides fragilis, and Fusobacterium nucleatum bacteria [45,46,47].
Gut microbiome production of genotoxins may significantly contribute to increased cancer predisposition. Genotoxic agents induce DNA damage, a prelude to cancer initiation and a driver of cancer progression. The gut microbiome produces various genotoxins that include colibactin, indolimines, and cytolethal distending toxins (CDTs).
Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) frequently demonstrate microbiome shifts characterized by increased Escherichia coli populations [48,49]. Certain strains of Escherichia contain a biosynthetic gene cluster that allows the synthesis of colibactin, a polyketide peptide [50]. The colibactin peptide promotes the formation of DNA interstrand crosslinks within colonic epithelial tissue, causing genomic instability and initiating neoplastic transformation [51,52]. Another group of colonic genotoxins, the indolimines, produced predominantly by the gut microbe, Morganella morganii, also predisposes the gut epithelium to neoplastic transformation. Investigations demonstrate that indolimines produce DNA double-strand breaks that induce oncogenic nucleic acid damage and initiate cancer. Similarly, CDTs, a class of bacterial proteins, also produce DNA double-strand breaks. CDTs exert other cancer-inducing effects beyond DNA double-strand break induction. Notably, CDTs arrest the cell cycle, leading to cellular architectural distortion and pathophysiologic dysfunction. A host of gut bacteria produce CDTs: Salmonella, Campylobacter, Helicobacter, and Shigella species, among others.
Gut microbiome-induced cancer predisposition extends beyond the proximal colon epithelium. Gut microbiome dysbiosis predisposes to breast cancer; specific gut bacteria may increase circulating estrogen levels, increasing the risk for mammary neoplastic transformation [53,54,55]. Similarly, gut bacteria may affect the production of androgens, modifying the risk for the development of prostate cancer [56,57]. Finally, the gut microbiome, by influencing the bodily inflammatory state, alters susceptibility to lung cancer [58,59,60].
In addition to cancer predisposition, gut microbiome dysbiosis may alter the response to cancer therapy. This altered response manifests both as worsened drug side effects and diminished therapeutic efficacy [42,61,62,63]. The gut microbiome plays a critical role in the metabolism of many chemotherapeutic agents [64,65]. Gut microbiome metabolic detoxication may help attenuate gastrointestinal distress, such as diarrhea, intestinal mucositis, and nausea, which frequently accompanies the administration of chemotherapeutic agents [66,67,68,69,70]; however, the gut microbiome may also exacerbate such side effects [71,72]. Normally, the liver detoxifies the chemotherapeutic irinotecan through glucuronidation. Beta-glucuronidase produced by dysbiotic gut bacteria may reverse glucuronidation and detoxification, leading to a reactivation of irinotecan that directly damages the gut epithelium and increases chemotherapy-associated gastrointestinal dysfunction [73,74]. Gut dysbiosis may also worsen side effects resulting from bone marrow transplant (BMT) to treat hematologic cancer. Graft-Versus-Host-Disease (GVHD), a potentially life-threatening side effect of BMT, is more likely to occur post-transplant in association with dysbiotic gut microbiomes with increased concentrations of Bacteroides, Prevotella, and Enterococcus, and decreased concentrations of Lactobacillus, Clostridia, and Akkermansia bacterial populations [75,76,77]. Such dysbiosis may compromise the intestinal barrier, resulting in a worsening of the body’s inflammatory state and increasing the risk of GVHD [77,78]. In addition to exacerbating the side effects of cancer treatment, gut dysbiosis may diminish the cancer therapeutic response [79,80]. This therapeutic diminishment affects traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy as well as precision, molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapies [81,82,83].
The gut microbiota metabolizes cytotoxic chemotherapeutic drugs, producing both beneficial and harmful end effects [84]. The gut bacterium Raoultella planticola deglycosylates doxorubicin; deglycosylated doxorubicin produces less epithelial damage than glycosylated doxorubicin and substantively reduces toxic side effects [85,86]. However, other bacteria, notably Klebsiella pneumonia and Escherichia coli, may excessively metabolize and degrade doxorubicin, thereby reducing clinical efficacy [87,88]. In addition to modulating cytotoxic chemotherapeutic efficacy, the gut microbiome may alter the effectiveness of precision therapeutics [89,90]. Oncologists utilize two classes of precision drugs: monoclonal antibodies and small molecule inhibitors. The gut microbiome regulates the biological activities of both classes. Studies have discovered that the gut microbiota impacts the efficacy of the monoclonal antibodies trastuzumab and cetuximab [91,92,93]; gut microbiota also affect clinical outcomes in patients treated with the small molecule inhibitors lapatinib and imatinib [94,95].
The gut microbiome, as well, affects the efficacy of immune treatments such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy. Patients with significant Bifidobacterium longum, Prevotella copri, and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii populations demonstrate improved clinical responses to ICIs [94,96,97]; in contrast, patients with higher proportions of Bacteroides, Ruminococcus obeum, and Roseburia intestinalis have decreased responses [98,99]. Gut microbiome populations influence the response to CAR-T therapy. Individuals with gut microbiomes enriched with Bacteroides, Ruminococcus, Faecalibacterium, Akkermansia, and Eubacterium species respond better to CAR-T therapy [100,101]. However, those patients with gut microbiomes dominated by other microbial species, especially Veillonellaceae, demonstrated incomplete responses [102,103]. Furthermore, complications of CAR-T, specifically cytokine release syndrome (CRS), occur more frequently and significantly in patients with gut microbiomes with higher proportions of Bifidobacterium, Leuconostoc, Stenotrophomonas, and Staphylococcus species; oppositely, some microbial species, e.g., Collinsella, may lessen the risk of cytokine-related complications [104,105].
Deciphering compositional differences among eubiotic, dysbiotic, and oncobiotic gut conditions allows investigators to make important associative connections between bacterial populations and disease states; further, the discovery of functional, mechanistic differences permits scientists to move beyond mere description and advance toward the development and implementation of active preventative and therapeutic interventions [106,107]. Recently, innovations in next-generation diagnostics, molecular cell biology, and computational sciences have paved tractable pathways to realize these advances and provided a toolkit for advancing research and clinical translation (Figure 2). Among the many innovations in this toolkit, new methods in metagenomics, mass spectrometry, systems biology, and artificial intelligence have uncovered the molecular bases of gut eubiosis, dysbiosis, and oncobiosis [108,109,110,111].

4. Towards a More Complete Accounting of the Gut Microbiome: Genomic and Functional Advances

4.1. The Promise of Metagenomics

Metagenomics provides a comprehensive molecular genetic description of the gut microbiome through genomic sequencing of the bacterial consortium en masse [112,113]. Downstream computational deconvolution identifies, distills, and molecularly clarifies individual consortium members [114]. Metagenomics demonstrates great scientific utility, overcoming several limitations of precedent bacterial genomic sequencing methods. Notably, laboratory-cultured gut microbes, frequently fastidious and typically the genome source for sequencing microbiome constituents, limit the ability to perform a complete genomic assessment. Metagenomic approaches, because they directly sequence a biological sample without the requirement for intermediary laboratory culturing, enable a complete ensemble, highly precise, and exceptionally detailed genomic assessment of the microbiome. Further advances in gut microbiome metagenomics, such as genome-resolved methods and high-throughput sequencing, promise to further accelerate the molecular accounting of complex gut bacterial populations [115,116]. Insights from metagenomic analyses antecede downstream functional assessments and predicate developments in clinical intervention.

4.2. Deciphering the Molecular Metabolome of the Gut Microbiome

Bioactive molecules and metabolites generated by the gut microbiome influence cancer predisposition and modulate cancer treatment effects [14,40,42,65,117,118,119,120]. Advances in molecular diagnostics, specifically innovations in mass spectrometry, significantly enhance our ability to discover and detect these bioactive molecules and understand their physiologic significance [121,122,123].
Mass spectrometry quantitates the mass to electronic charge ratio (m/z) of ions generated from a molecular substance [124,125]. Molecules have specific, identifying m/z signatures reflecting each substance’s unique isotopic and chemical composition; mass spectrometry detects, molecularly deconstructs, and precisely quantifies both previously well-characterized substances and unknown, novel chemicals [126,127]. Mass spectrometry performs reliably and versatilely; mass spectrometry ably analyzes the composition of highly diverse and heterogeneous materials [128,129]. These broad analytic capabilities well qualify mass spectrometry to appraise the expansive spectrum of gut microbiome bioactive molecules.
In particular, mass spectrometric characterization provides detailed molecular accounting of the gut bacterial metabolome [130,131]. Metabolic products of gut bacteria include peptides, lipids, fatty acids, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids [132,133]. These small molecules mediate critical biological activities and significantly influence gut physiology. Mass spectrometric cataloging of these metabolites contributes to a mechanistic understanding of both healthy and pathogenic states of the gut microbiome; recent advances have accelerated these understandings.
Recent notable advances in mass spectrometry include innovations in technology and computation. Two related, novel technological innovations, single-cell mass spectroscopy [134,135,136] and spatially resolved mass spectroscopy [137,138,139], unveil metabolic processes occurring within specific regions and among heterogeneous constituents of the gut microbiome. Such levels of resolution and specificity facilitate the development of complex, highly detailed mechanistic models of the interactions among the many gut microbial species and between the microbiome and its host. The application of a systems biological framework to these interactions confers an intuitive structure upon these complex interactions [140,141,142]. The creation of such highly detailed and precise mechanistic models, however, requires tremendous analytic expertise and significant computational resources. Innovative computational approaches provide solutions to overcome the logistical and capital impediments to continued metabolomic discovery.
The considerable computational challenges of identifying, deconvoluting, and deciphering the metabolic mechanisms of the gut microbiome arise simply from the sheer volume of both previously known metabolites and unknown, uncharacterized metabolic products. To optimize the identification of previously annotated metabolites, computational scientists employ strategies such as community-enhanced mass spectrometric reference libraries [143,144] and high-efficiency molecular matching protocols [145,146]. In parallel, the utilization of highly efficient molecular structural modeling approaches allows for the rapid, proficient identification and cataloging of newly discovered microbiome metabolites [147,148]. Comprehensive microbiome metabolomic libraries serve as data compendia for subsequent analytics including structure–function prediction tools and systems biological workflows; these analytics enable scientists to develop deep, rigorous mechanistic descriptions of microbiome–host interactions [149,150,151].
Microbiome mechanistic descriptions serve as bases for the conception and invention of therapies to prevent and manage symptoms and treat diseases associated with gut dysbiosis. For example, mechanism-informed lifestyle interventions promote eubiosis; bioengineers leverage mechanistic insights to accelerate the design and utilization of clinical interventions such as prebiotic supplementation and fecal transplantation to mitigate oncology treatment-associated side effects and maximize therapeutic efficacy [152,153,154]. Developing a more complete understanding of the metabolic bioactive molecules produced by the gut microbiome will continue to catalyze mechanistic and therapeutic discovery [12,155,156].

4.3. Towards a More Complete Accounting of the Gut Microbiome Molecular Inventory

Mass spectrometry achieves a detailed accounting of the bioactive molecules produced by the gut microbiome. These bioactive molecules may cause direct genotoxic effects as well as modulate oncogenic pathways, predisposing patients to cancer development [157,158,159]. Modulatory bioactive molecules include short-chain fatty acids, polyphenols, bile acid metabolites, and tryptophan derivatives.
Fatty acids have linear hydrocarbon backbones terminating in an acidic carboxyl group [160,161]. Chemists classify fatty acids with a backbone of five or fewer carbon atoms as short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) [162,163]. Physiologically, SCFAs mediate important biological functions, notably influencing cancer initiation, progression, and response to therapy [164,165,166]. The gut microbiome serves as a primary source of SCFAs, synthesized primarily through the fermentation of dietary fiber. Important SCFAs produced by the gut microbiome include acetate, propionate, and butyrate. Bacteroides and Faecalibacterium bacteria produce the greatest amounts of gut SCFAs [167,168].
Another class of gut bioactive products, the polyphenols, exert powerful, generally oncoprotective effects [169,170]. Chemically, polyphenols contain multiple hydroxylated aromatic rings [171,172]. The gut microbiome produces several important classes of polyphenols: hydrophenylpropionic acid, hydroxyphenylacetic acid, and the urolithins [173,174,175]. These gut polyphenols derive principally from bacterial metabolism of ingested parent, plant-based substances rich in polyphenol substrates [176,177]. Microbiome polyphenols inhibit oncogenesis by reducing colonic inflammation, mitigating oxidative processes, and inhibiting oncogenic molecular signaling pathways [178,179,180]. Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Roseburia, Akkermansia, and Faecalibacterium microbial populations play central roles in the metabolism and processing of ingested polyphenols [181,182,183,184]. Disruptions of these microbial populations abrogate associated oncoprotective effects, potentially predisposing to cancer development.
The liver synthesizes and releases bioactive bile salts that serve primarily to facilitate fat digestion [185,186]. Bile acids, though, at excessive levels, may have harmful effects producing colonic inflammation, nucleic acid oxidation, and cell cycle disruption [187,188,189,190,191,192,193]. These pathophysiologic disruptions activate colon cancer initiation pathways and promote oncologic progression [194,195,196]. The gut microbiome, through the metabolic processing of gut bile acids, primarily cholic acid and chenodeoxycholic acids, may exacerbate these risks through the synthesis of secondary bioactive bile metabolites [197]. Secondary gut microbiome-generated metabolites, such as deoxycholic acid, lithocholic acid, and hydrogen sulfide, amplify the oncogenic effects of bile acids [198,199,200]. Investigators have implicated Clostridium Bacteroides and Eubacterium as the major gut bacteria responsible for the generation of harmful secondary bile acid products [201,202,203].
We routinely ingest tryptophan, an essential amino acid, as part of a complete, balanced diet. Tryptophan serves as an indispensable building block for protein synthesis, but the cell also utilizes tryptophan to construct myriad bioactive molecules [204,205,206]. Gut microbiota, notably Bacillus, Pseudomomas, and Bacteroides species, metabolize tryptophan to generate several biologically important substances, specifically, kynurenine, indole, and indoacetic and indoleproprionic acid derivatives [207,208,209,210,211]. These tryptophan metabolites modulate key physiologic activities, including the functioning of the immune system [212,213]. Elevated levels of kynurenine inhibit the immune response, consequently predisposing to cancer development [214,215]; conversely, indole and its derivatives suppress inflammation, thereby exerting a protective effect against cancer [216,217]. Additionally, tryptophan derivatives alter tumor cell behavior. Kynurenine stimulates cancer growth and tumor spread; indole metabolites induce tumor cell cycle arrest and cell death [218,219]. Finally, certain classes of indoles, the indolimines, as previously noted, exert genotoxic effects to induce nucleic acid damage and genomic instability. Knowledge of the interactions among the varied bioactive molecules of the gut microbiome and how these interactions affect cancer behavior and therapeutic response inform and optimize cancer care. The accession and structuring of such knowledge, however, creates a formidable analytic and computational challenge. One solution to this challenge may emerge from a powerful scientific discipline: systems biology.

4.4. Understanding the Microbiome from a Systems Biology Perspective

Complex biological phenomena result from interactions among, frequently, a dauntingly large number of molecular and physiologic variables; comprehensive assessment and integration of these interactions demands significant, possibly prohibitive, commitments of data processing expertise and scientific resources. Understanding these interactions yields critically important insights; identifying, describing, and structuring the summary effects of these interactions has significant scientific and clinical implications, potentially establishing pathways for the prediction of biological behavior and the creation of therapeutic drugs.
Systems biology, an integrative, computational discipline, paves these investigatory pathways through the construction of accessible mathematical models that emulate biological population assemblage, architecture, and performance [220,221,222]. These mathematical models provide a more efficient, incisive, and intuitive accounting of complex biological phenomena. Systems biology and the mathematical models they create help manage the extreme volume and disambiguate the complexity of gut microbiome interactions. To achieve efficient disambiguation, systems biologists utilize various highly versatile analytical methods, such as the production of genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs).
Genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) computationally reproduce microbiome dynamic metabolic states through ensemble integration of “omic” (i.e., genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, metabolomic) data [223,224,225]; ensemble models reliably predict organism behavior in response to external stimuli and anticipate downstream resultant effects [226,227]. GEMs comprehensively forecast the physiological interactions, integrated metabolic states, and reactions to environmental stressors (e.g., antibiotic use, toxin exposure, dietary fluctuation) of the gut microbiome [228,229,230]. Microbiome forecasting aids the preventative maintenance of eubiosis and therapeutic remediation of oncobiosis. Beyond leveraging metabolic-based forecasting, systems biologists may gain insights into the state of the microbiome through the assessment of structural and immunologic conditions [231,232].
Individuals exhibit unique microbiome structure defined by overall bacterial composition and biological interactions within the gut [233,234,235]. This structure derives from evolutionarily driven, specialized adaption to the gut biologic niche [236,237,238]. The microbiome structure within the niche affords both a gut-protective physical barrier as well as an optimized biochemical milieu; disruption of this structure risks invasion and colonization by intrusive and oncobiotic bacteria [239,240]. Comprehensive omics-derived profiling models provide keys to clarify the molecular basis of optimized microbiome compositional structure.
Alongside the emergence of an onco-protective compositional structure, the microbiome modulates immune function to defend against cancer initiation [241,242]. The gut microbiome conditions the immune system by training dendritic cells and T-cells through several molecular mechanisms, producing important antiviral substances, and beneficially regulating the activity of regulatory cells [20,243,244,245,246,247]. The scientist may understand these immunological effects through the lens of omics-based molecular profiling and systems biology modeling of microbiome–immunologic system interactions [248,249,250]. Genetic, genomic, and epigenetic constitution informs eventual composition and function of the gut microbiome; perturbations in composition and function negatively degrade salutary immune system operations, ultimately predisposing to neoplastic transformation and progression [251,252,253,254].
Systems biological approaches have transformed our insights into the molecular mechanics of the gut microbiome. These insights help preserve health and may prevent disease, especially cancer. Powerful analytic methods and expert investigation accelerate these insights. The continued adoption of pioneering computational and mathematical methods promises to advance system biological methods and hasten scientific discovery. New methods in artificial intelligence (AI) and their application to microbiome research afford inventive strategies to realize this promise more quickly.

4.5. Leveraging AI to Discover Gut Microbiome Structure and Function

AI plays an ever-burgeoning role in oncology, representing an important technique to abet cancer care [244,255,256]. For example, oncologists employ AI to optimize therapeutic decision-making, symptom management, and cancer diagnostic workflows [257,258,259]. AI applications work well to perform analyses of intimidatingly large data sets and discover solutions to complex, multifactorial problems; given the immensely complex nature of the gut microbiome, AI offers resolution towards more efficient and determinative elucidation of both healthy and pathological colonic microbiome processes. AI has the potential to improve description of the temporal and spatial composition, function, and therapeutic management of the gut microbiome.

4.5.1. AI Insights into the Temporal/Spatial Structure of the Gut Microbiome

The gut hosts a vast array of bacteria, staggering both in absolute number and diversity of microorganisms present: various estimates place the quantities close to 100 trillion individual organisms comprising nearly one thousand different bacterial species [260,261]. Moreover, gut microbiome composition changes dynamically, continually altering in response to a variety of factors, including age, disease, medications, and environmental exposures. Adding to quantitative complexity, the colon exhibits a spatial diversity that depends, in part, upon different gut geographic, physiologic, and structural conditions. Scientists increasingly harness the power of AI-based approaches to assemble, process, and analyze information from the massive data stores generated from microbiome studies [262,263]. This information provides valuable insight into the temporal, spatial, and operational structure of the gut microbiome and, ultimately, the development and implementation of therapeutic cancer strategies.

4.5.2. AI Methods, Models, and Algorithms to Investigate the Function and Operations of the Gut Microbiome

The gut microbiome executes several integral biochemical, metabolic, and physiologic functions. From these functions emerges an intricate and adaptive biological system. The analytic conceptualization of operational relationships among the enormous number of microbiome organisms routinely challenges the capabilities of traditional computational methods. To overcome these challenges, microbiome scientists have available to them a variety of AI methods, models, and algorithms.
Machine learning, a pivotal AI method, enhances the efficiency, rigor, and speed of gut microbiome analyses. Machine learning enables computer systems to process data autonomously, iteratively improving the quality and precision of analytic outputs through serial, expanding data exposition learning cycles. Scientists have employed machine learning methods to identify important gut microbiome molecular signatures. Machine learning methods have advanced gut microbiome data preprocessing [264]. Computational biologists have leveraged machine learning methods to better understand the molecular underpinnings of gut microbiome network interactions. The application of highly effective machine learning methods and the utilization of innovative mathematical models and statistical algorithms allow computational biologists to unveil the intricate functioning of and interactions within the gut microbiome.
Machine learning methods segregate into two broad categories: supervised and unsupervised. Supervised machine learning relies on and employs input data with previously established output values. Investigators have employed gut microbiome-supervised machine learning methods to improve cancer clinical diagnosis [265], prognosis [266], and treatment [267].
In contrast to supervised methods, unsupervised machine learning does not rely upon input data sets with known output values or associations; rather, unsupervised machine learning seeks to discover patterns, commonalities, and disparities among input data elements. These discovered groupings allow biologists and clinicians to define and understand organizational and functional relationships among constituents of the gut microbiome. Unsupervised machine learning methods have provided insight into the population characteristics of distinct microbiome gut microbiome consortia [268], identify previously unknown gut microbiome biomarkers [264], and distinguish patient populations based on their gut microbiome profiles [269]. Supervised and unsupervised methods rely upon a repertoire of key mathematical models and statistical algorithms.
Primary supervised machine learning models and algorithms include logistic regression, support vector machines, and random forests. Both logistic regression and support vector machines allow for the binary classification of output results. The random forest algorithm also solves classification problems but arguably, compared with other supervised approaches, performs more optimally and efficiently with data sets having inherently complex relational structures. These supervised machine learning models and algorithms have supported gut microbiome research examining disease prediction [270], differences between healthy and dysfunctional microbiome states [271], and gut microbiome functional capacities [272].
Unsupervised models and algorithms aid the discovery and elucidation of unknown structures and interactions among data elements. Computational biologists and AI engineers frequently employ three models and algorithms to perform unsupervised machine learning tasks: K-means clustering, hierarchical clustering, and principal component analysis.
K-means and hierarchical clustering categorize input data elements based on maximizing shared characteristics within a class and distinctions among classes. These clustering approaches, though, employ different clustering strategies and individually better suit specific applications. K-means clustering creates multiple independent clusters, whereas hierarchical clustering creates progressively more granular dendritic clusters. Vis-à-vis K-means clustering, hierarchical clustering offers a more intuitive insight into logical relationships among clusters. Hierarchical clustering expends more computational resources relative to K-means clustering, ideally suiting hierarchical clustering for the analysis of smaller data sets.
Principal component analysis aids and accelerates unsupervised machine learning by reducing large, intractable data sets to less complex, more manageable sets by employing only the most relevant (i.e., principle) variables within a data set or by compressing the data set into fewer, more information-dense, synthetic variables. These models and algorithms have enabled the identification of gut microbiome enterotypes [273], elucidation of pathogenic microbiome conditions [274], and summary descriptions of gut microbiome populations resulting from diet and body habitus [275].
Together, these metagenomic, metabolomic, systems biology, and computational approaches have led to a deeper understanding of gut microbiome genomic structure and functioning. This deep understanding provides a foundation for the development and implementation of therapeutic inventions to maintain eubiosis and ameliorate dysbiosis [276,277,278].

5. Gut Microbiome Therapeutic Intervention

Three foundational, transformative approaches drive clinically meaningful intervention of the gut microbiome: genetic engineering/synthetic biology, prebiotic/probiotic implementation, and fecal transplantation.

5.1. Genetic Engineering and Synthetic Biology

5.1.1. Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineers directly edit the genome of organisms to achieve desired phenotypic outcomes; gut microbiome scientists engineer bacterial genomes to promote the growth of beneficial bacterial species, enhance the synthesis of clinically advantageous metabolic products, and attenuate the production of harmful byproducts [279,280,281]. For example, clinicians have leveraged genetic engineering technologies to improve therapeutic outcomes and minimize untoward side effects; investigators have used genetically-modified Bacillus coagulans bacterial spores to release nanoparticle-bound chemotherapeutic agents in the intestine, thereby improving focused drug delivery to sites of active colorectal cancer [282]. More recently, two specific genetic engineering advances, base editing and in situ conjugation, have facilitated the translation of gut microbiome engineering into the clinic.
Molecular biologists developed base editing, a modified form of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, to ensure greater precision [283,284]. With standard CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, a complementary RNA guides the endonuclease enzyme Cas9 to a specific target nucleotide sequence within the genome. Cas9 then excises a multi-nucleotide section of the genome that flanks the target sequence; subsequently, the cell uses homology-directed repair (HDR) employing a template containing an altered nucleotide sequence to replace the target sequence. With this standard approach, because it involves the excision of multiple nucleotides and relies upon imperfect HDR to achieve repair and editing, errors may occur. In comparison, the base editing technique utilizes a variant Cas9 that allows accurate localization to a target nucleotide sequence but does not perform nucleotide excision; instead, base editing employs a deaminase to alter the targeted nucleotide sequence [285,286,287]. Base editing ensures more proficient and precise gene editing. Scientists recently demonstrated successful editing of the gut microbiome using base editing together with a highly effective phage-based payload delivery system to achieve large-scale, in situ gene editing [288].
Bolstering clinicians’ capabilities to effectively modify the gut microbiome, investigators have adapted another molecular delivery approach to facilitate high efficiency in situ gene editing. This approach, Metagenomic Alteration of Gut microbiome by In situ Conjugation (MAGIC), achieves wholesale gene editing of an entire microbial community in the living organism [289,290]. MAGIC utilizes the bacterial gene transfer molecular mechanism of conjugation to introduce, in vivo, a variant gene sequence from a donor bacterium into a bacterially diverse recipient community. MAGIC permits genetic engineering of the entire bacterial communal ecosystem while at the same time preserving the inherent, intricate, and frequently unstable state of interactions among heterogenous bacteria. In an inaugural series of experiments, investigators demonstrated the ability to simultaneously genetically engineer nearly 300 significantly varied gut bacterial species. Genetic engineering methods and technologies afford means to not merely modify existing genes but, more broadly, to introduce new genetic capabilities into the microbiome; another technological advance, synthetic biology, applies the insights of genetic engineering to accomplish practical implementation of these new capabilities.

5.1.2. Synthetic Biology

Synthetic biology capitalizes on multiple scientific disciplines to aid in the design and rendering of novel, artificial biologic systems; these systems derive from systems biology-based computational conceptualization, molecular biological modification, and clinical implementation of customized microbiome consortia [291,292,293]. Recent inventions and discoveries, such as the creation of environmental gut biosensors, the construction of synthetic bacterial consortia, and the manufacturing of engineered metabolic pathways, demonstrate the potential of synthetic biology.
Biologists have modified gut bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Bacteroides, and Lactobacillus, to carry molecular payloads that function as biosensors capable of detecting and reporting conditions of dysbiosis and harmful metabolite production [294,295,296]. These gut biosensors demonstrate abilities to identify numerous small molecules, notably, inflammatory byproducts, GABA metabolites, and SCFA derivatives [297,298,299,300]. The engineered, biosensing bacteria reliably integrate into the native gut microbiome ecosystem, creating a novel, stable, self-reporting gut bacterial ecosystem.
Gut scientists fabricate synthetic gut bacterial consortia comprising bacterial populations able to thrive within the complex gut environment and selected or genetically engineered to mitigate cancer risk, improve therapeutic outcomes, or enhance clinical research. Investigators report the successful development and utilization of several synthetic microbial consortia, for example, to treat colitis [301], improve precision therapeutic responses [302], and facilitate experimental modeling of the gut microbiome [303]. Additionally, synthetic biology furnishes researchers with the technical abilities to fashion and assemble innovative gut bacterial systems to promote microbiome investigation. As a case in point, scientists constructed an optimized bacterial population comprising 100 gut bacterial species to emulate the functioning of a well-performing, elderly gut microbiome [304]—the MCC100 system. MCC100 represents a synthetic bacterial system that mimics that of older individuals and affords a theoretical opportunity to study the health consequences of and therapeutic drug responses influenced by the elderly gut microbiome.
Investigators introduced another synthetic microbial consortium recreating a microbiome that generates butyrate metabolites; this consortium furnishes a dedicated platform for focused investigation of this butyrate’s biological and health effects [305]. Synthetic biology undergirds other gut metabolic models, such as those with active bacterial propionate and acetate biochemical production pathways [306,307,308,309]. One research study documented the development of a synthetic propionate-producing microbiome consortium capable of restoring compromised mitochondrial function [310]. Other studies leveraged principles of synthetic biology to design, formulate, and assemble gut microbial populations optimized for the biomanufacturing of acetate [311,312]; such acetate-generating gut bacteria improve gut function and overall health [313,314]. To further improve clinical outcomes, scientists and clinicians have available to them additional options to accomplish the directed modification of the gut microbiome: prebiotic and probiotic administration and fecal transplantation.

5.2. Advances in Gut Microbiome PreBiotics, ProBiotics and Fecal Transplantation

Prebiotics, probiotics, and fecal transplantation alter the compositional architecture of the microbiome. Prebiotics supply substrates and nutrients that induce preferential growth of selected bacteria [315,316,317]. By supporting the growth and proliferation of specific bacteria, prebiotics significantly influence microbiome constitution, function, and metabolite generation. For instance, high-fiber prebiotics foster the expansion of healthy, salutary bacteria by conferring a growth advantage over damaging, toxic species [318]. Prebiotics rich in fructose, galactose, and xylose oligosaccharides stimulate the growth of bacteria that boost the function of the immune system [319]. Complex carbohydrates, frequently a component of many prebiotics, sustain bacteria that produce beneficial SCFAs, specifically acetate, propionate, and butyrate [320]. Inulin-containing prebiotics promote the growth of beneficial gut microbiota, such as Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus faecalis, and Lactobacillus [321,322,323]. Several clinical trials have demonstrated favorable effects of prebiotic inulin supplementation in patients undergoing active cancer treatments. Investigators have established that inulin supplementation effectively reduces systolic blood pressure in women undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer [324]. In colon cancer patients, the use of inulin prebiotics results in increases in immune system-boosting interferon-gamma [325]. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, radiation therapy-treated gynecologic cancer patients demonstrated a quicker recovery of beneficial gut microbiome composition and stool quality after receiving a prebiotic inulin-containing dietary supplement [326]. Attaining the benefits of prebiotics, though, necessitates chronic prebiotic administration; furthermore, the realization of such benefits may significantly lag the initiation of prebiotic use. In contrast, patients may experience more immediate and potentially durable benefits with probiotic use.
Probiotics contain custom-formulated, live, active bacterial mixtures; vis-à-vis prebiotics, probiotics act more directly and determinatively to transform microbiome composition [327,328,329]. The creation of probiotic formulations relies on several compounding strategies, including the laboratory amalgamation of multiple beneficial bacterial cultures [330,331], genetic bioengineering of preexisting bacterial communities to enhance selected biological properties [332,333,334], and the ex vivo development of novel bacterial communities to create artificial, health-enhancing bacterial ecosystems [335,336]. Clinicians administer probiotics in various forms—particles, emulsions, and capsules, among others—to optimize transit through and survival within the gut [337,338,339]. Probiotics may prevent cancer [340,341], improve therapeutic responses [342,343], and ameliorate drug-associated side effects [344,345]. Results from multiple clinical trials have reinforced the utility of probiotics as a therapeutic adjunct. In colorectal cancer patients, in the postoperative period, the consumption of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria probiotic formulations reduced pro-inflammatory cytokine levels to optimize the immune state of the recovering colon [346]. The concurrent use of a probiotic cocktail in a Phase II trial of patients receiving radiotherapy for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma reduced mucositis incidence rates [347]. In a phase I trial, the use of a Clostridium butyricum probiotic strain (CBM588) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients receiving immune checkpoint therapy prolonged progression-free survival and response rates [348]. An alternative approach to modify directly the gut microbiome, fecal transplantation, may demonstrate advantages over probiotic use [349,350,351]. Fecal transplantation directly introduces an optimized fecal bacterial combination into the gastrointestinal system, utilizing proximal or distal routes of transfer [352,353].
Fecal transplantation administers a carefully selected fecal bacterial sample proximally, employing nasogastric instillation or capsule ingestion, or distally, using colonoscopic or enema seeding [354,355,356,357,358,359]. Clinicians obtain fecal samples for transplantation from healthy patient donors who fulfill specific medical criteria that include good general and, specifically, gastrointestinal health, no recent antibiotic use, the absence of communicable disease, no history of high-risk behaviors such as intravenous drug use or sexual activity with infectious potential, and no recent travels to areas with elevated rates of infectious disease [360,361]. Fecal transplantation, as with prebiotics and probiotics, may reduce cancer risk [362,363], mitigate drug side effects [364], and improve clinical outcomes in patients receiving immunotherapy and other cancer treatments [365,366,367,368,369]. Moreover, fecal transplantation may achieve therapeutic endpoints more quickly and effectively compared with other gut microbiome interventions [370,371,372,373,374]. The recent Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approval of two fecal transplant therapies underscores the increasing clinical currency of this treatment approach. Based on multiple randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials [375,376], the FDA, in 2022, approved enema administration of the live fecal microbiota suspension RBX2660 (Rebyota) to prevent the recurrence of gastrointestinal tract Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) following treatment for recurrent CDI. Clinicians observed that a single administration of RBX2660 safely and durably prevented recurrence; moreover, RBX2660 demonstrated superior clinical efficacy compared with standard-of-care treatment. More recently, in 2023, the FDA also granted approval for SER-109 (Vowst), an orally administered live fecal microbiota spore formulation, for the prevention of CDI recurrence following antibiotic treatment [377]. In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessment, SER-109 therapy resulted in less frequent CDI recurrence compared with the placebo controls [378]. As an orally administered agent, SER-109 represents an effective, less invasive, and more convenient therapy compared with gastrointestinal tract instillation or enema dispensation of a live fecal agent [379].

6. Pathways to Accelerating Microbiome-Related Discovery and Clinical Translation

As investigators and clinicians continue to increasingly recognize the importance of microbiome function as a determinative factor in cancer outcomes, considerations emerge as to how to best accelerate microbiome-related scientific discovery and clinical translation. Such discovery and translation, though, may create resource, logistical, and practical issues [380,381,382]. Limitations in computational expertise, laboratory technologies, and patient access may curtail advancements of our knowledge of the microbiome. Team collaborative investigations afford multidisciplinary capabilities to overcome these limitations and elevate the science of microbiome research and therapeutic innovation. The following sections examine successful microbiome team initiatives with a specific emphasis on the unique team academic research and clinical environment at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center.

6.1. Team Collaborative Science Accelerates Gut Microbiome Research

Investigators now rely increasingly on team science to achieve research goals. Team science allows investigators to pool resources and more easily access experts, patients, and research samples. Team-focused initiatives reduce the costs of and accelerate research, resulting in improvements in the quantity and quality of research. Team science may comprise collaborations among different departments within a single institution, different institutions within a nation, or multiple nations across the globe. Examples of successful microbiome team initiatives include the National Institutes of Health’s Human Microbiome project (HMP), the Tri-Service Microbiome Consortium (TSMC), and the Global Microbiome Conservancy (GMC).
The HMP, a ten-year initiative supported by the National Institutes of Health, sought to gain deeper insight into the human microbiome. The HMP promoted collaborative partnerships among Virginia Commonwealth University, Washington University, the Baylor College of Medicine, and several other academic institutions to investigate the microbiome. Phase One (2007–2014) of the HMP involved creating preliminary descriptive genomic data sets, developing investigatory tools, and establishing regulatory guidelines to facilitate microbiome research. In Phase Two (2014–2016), designated the Integrated Human Microbiome project, the team aimed to uncover causal relationships between microbiome conditions and states of health and disease. Among its many high-impact contributions to advancing microbiome research, the HMP presented one of the first comprehensive structural descriptions [234], detailed the metabolic functioning [383], and identified major causative microbial pathogens [384] of the microbiome. The HMP laid the early foundation from which other microbiome research collaborations arose.
The Department of Defense chartered the TSMC in 2016 “to enhance collaboration, coordination, and communication of microbiome research” [385]. The TSMC includes personnel from the Army, Navy, and Air Force; academic faculty and students; and commercial industries. Recent efforts of the TSMC have helped to characterize the human microbiome, advance computational and research methods, and create novel in vitro and in vivo experimental models. The TSMC places great emphasis on leveraging the potential of team microbiome investigation to maintain levels of health and optimal human functioning in changing and stressful environmental conditions. Both the HMP and TSMC highlight the value of domestic, primarily local and national, collaboration; international team microbiome research has also yielded valuable scientific discoveries to advance our understanding of the microbiome.
The GMC, established in 2016 by microbiologists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, seeks to expand the understanding of the microbiome, increase related research volume, and serve as a repository and source of globally diverse microbiome samples [386]. The GMC has collected specimens from around the world, including Africa, the Arctic, North and South America, Europe, and Asia [387,388,389]. Access to and utilization of this collection enables the discovery of global demographic, economic, and societal effects on microbiome composition and functioning that impact human health and well-being. Work employing samples from the GMC has described the molecular consequences of industrialization on microbiome genetic diversity [390,391] and explored the worldwide distribution and prevalence of microbiome epigenetic modulation [392] and the consequences of urbanization on microbiome population dynamics [393]. The domestic and global collaborative efforts of the HMP, TSMC, and GMC help to expand the breadth of microbiome research; institutional, intramural efforts promise to redouble the depth of research. Underscoring this promise, the unique academic research and clinical environment at the COH Comprehensive Center demonstrates the tremendous potential of intramural team efforts at an academic cancer center to force multiply the impact of collaborative microbiome research.

6.2. The COH Model of Microbiome Collaborative Team Science

6.2.1. The Academic/Community Oncology Alliance at the COH

Emerging economic, governmental, and societal trends have driven the establishment and growth of the alliance between community and academic oncology practices [394]. The COH Comprehensive Cancer Center illustrates the power and potential of this alliance. The unique structure of COH, with its centralized academic Duarte, California hub, and expansive network of community practice sites, allowed for the development of an exceptional, mutually beneficial clinical and investigational synergism [395,396,397].

6.2.2. The COH Clinical Network

COH provides cancer care across the nation with operations in the Southwestern, Midwestern, and Eastern regions of the United States, with outpatient facilities located in the Chicago, Atlanta, Phoenix, and Southern California areas. These operations serve more than 100,000 new patients each year; over 500 physicians and 10,000 support team members provide this care [398]. COH concentrates care in Southern California, with care readily available to the nearly twenty million inhabitants of the Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The Southern California Duarte campus functions as a central organizational hub for more than thirty satellite community oncology practices. A second, recently constructed subsidiary COH Cancer Center (Lennar) in Orange County, California, has operated since 2022. Together, the COH academic and community oncology enterprise delivers services to a broad socio-economically and racially diverse patient population (Figure 3). This large and diverse clinical network helps sustain a robust and innovative microbiome research operation at COH.
The Duarte hub provides all providers and patients access to advanced, innovative therapeutic treatments and educational resources, the ability to interface with world experts in clinical care and experimental methods, and the opportunity to improve the diversity and relevance of research discovery through the involvement of their community patients in investigational protocols. Conversely, the COH academic research hub benefits from the participation of community oncology practices by increasing the overall number and diversity of subjects in their studies. Increased numbers help studies to more quickly reach critical accrual numbers and reduce population bias, thus minimizing the potential for statistical skew and contributing to a logistical economy of scale in protocol completion. The mutually beneficial synergism between COH community oncology practices and the Duarte academic hub has led to a virtuous cycle of enhanced research productivity and health care; this virtuous cycle extends to microbiome-focused investigation and clinical translation (Figure 4).

6.2.3. COH Resources Available for Microbiome Research

COH makes available a variety of resources to clinicians and investigators to assist with microbiome-related research. COH situates its research resources centrally at the Duarte academic campus and as stand-alone facilities administratively closely linked with the Duarte hub. Core facilities work in close collaboration with investigators to assist with the design, execution, and data analysis of research investigations. The COH-associated Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen), with its Integrated Microbiome Center (IMC) and its work with the Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology (QIIME 2) project, the COH Computational and Quantitative Medicine Department (CQM), and the COH Department of Applied Artificial Intelligence and Data Science (AAI/DS) have focused their efforts on advancing microbiome research (Figure 5).

7. TGen, IMC, and QIIME 2

7.1. TGen

TGen, a genomics research institute that has been affiliated with COH since 2016, aspires to make precision medicine a reality for all. TGen has physical locations at two campuses located in Arizona connected with the COH Duarte academic hub through a high-capacity, ultra-high-speed data transmission network. TGen develops and implements new methods of molecular genetic assessment with the aim of optimizing cancer diagnostics, prognostics, and personalized, targeted cancer therapeutics. TGen researchers and data analytic teams work with clinicians, translational investigators, and basic scientists throughout the COH network to advance the frontiers of genomic science. TGen plays an integral role in microbiome research at COH, primarily through the operation and administration of the IMC.

7.2. IMC

The TGen IMC functions as a multidisciplinary core research service that facilitates the efforts of COH oncologists and scientific investigators to understand and leverage the microbiome in cancer care. The IMC offers streamlined assistance for microbiome-related studies. Assistance includes study design consultation, specimen collection protocols, nucleic acid extraction, sequencing library preparation, next-generation sequencing, post-sequencing computational and statistical analyses, and downstream translational interpretation. Importantly, the IMC adheres to Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA) standards, ensuring the reliability and security of microbiome analyses. IMC computational analyses rely heavily on the QIIME 2 bioinformatics platform.

7.3. QIIME 2

QIIME 2 evolved from QIIME, a data science suite for the high throughput computational analysis of microbiome 16S and 18S rRNA amplicon sequencing data [399,400]. Developers reengineered QIIME to accommodate next-generation microbiome computational processing, including the assessment of microbiome-related metabolomic and metagenomic data. The reengineered version, QIIME 2, allows for dynamic, organic software evolution through interactive community application development [401]. QIIME 2 provides transparent, reproducible data-provenance tracking with archival storage of all analytic steps. Currently, the QIIME 2 development team operates as an integral element of the COH IMC involved with core computational processing of microbiome data.

8. The COH CQM

The COH CQM advances multidisciplinary projects in computational biology to improve cancer diagnostics and therapeutics. CQM comprises several core divisions: Computational Structural Biology and Drug Design, Biostatistics, Informatics, Mathematics for Cancer Evolution and Early Detection, Health Analytics, and a Division of Mathematical Oncology and Computational Systems Biology. All CQM divisions contribute to the advancement of microbiome-related research at the COH. Of note, Computational Systems Biology at the COH focuses on developing models describe complex biological interactions, an approach particularly well suited to understanding the structure and function of the gut microbiome. The Computational Systems Biology Division works to develop collaborative relationships with COH clinicians, basic scientists, and translational oncologists.

9. COH AAI/DS

AI continues to transform clinical medicine. COH created the AAI/DS to accelerate independent AI investigation; establish a resource for AI instruction, discussion, and education; and foster collaborative AI-based research projects. AAI/DS faculty and staff assist with experimental design, execution, and data analyses. In association with COH investigators, AAI/DS has developed several machine-learning-based models to accurately mirror and understand actual clinical scenarios. The AAI/DS introduced models to better elucidate the structure and function of the gut microbiome; one machine learning application analyzes the composition of the gut microbiome to predict the risk of adverse gastrointestinal side effects during breast cancer treatment [402].

10. Microbiome Advances at COH

COH clinicians and scientists have made significant insights into the role of the microbiome in clinical oncology and continue active engagement in high-impact, innovative microbiome research. COH investigators recently published several high-impact gut microbiome-related studies, including investigations examining the response to cytotoxic, molecularly targeted, radiation, and CAR-T cell therapies [403,404,405,406,407,408]; other important COH gut microbiome studies have focused on ameliorating cancer-related cachexia [409], sarcopenia [410], graft versus host lethality [411], long-term cancer mortality [412], and cancer risk [413]. COH researchers currently oversee multiple federally funded research projects interrogating the role of the gut microbiome in graft versus host disease, metabolic surgery, response to cancer immunotherapy, gut–immune system interactions, and intestinal genomic diversity [414]. With the aim of advancing our understanding of the clinical importance of the gut microbiome in cancer care, clinical trials at the COH seek to evaluate microbiome-related clinical outcomes, therapeutic responses, and prevention of toxic side effects. (Table 1). Building on these initiatives, COH continues to accelerate the pace of microbiome discovery through expansion of its research and computational resources.

11. Meeting the Challenges of Gut Microbiome Research at COH

As gut microbiome research continues to grow, challenges arise, potentially impeding its progress. These challenges arise due to the novelty and unfamiliarity but also the inherent complexity and sheer breadth of gut microbiome investigation. Among numerous challenges, three have acquired recent prominence: funding limitations, standardization of methods, and ethical concerns.
Investigators face fierce competition for research funding. Limited resources and competing demands drive this competition. In the case of gut microbiome research, additional considerations further hamper investigators’ competition for financial support. Conceptually, modification of the gut microbiome remains incompletely proven as an effective clinical strategy; as such, granting agencies may preferentially fund those interventions that have more firmly demonstrated clinical promise. Further, the daunting complexity of the gut microbiome may not only impede research progress but also mute enthusiasm for funding as agencies hesitate to fund what they do not understand. Finally, the dearth of established experts and competent research facilities may discourage funding bodies as they deem gut microbiome research both impractical and wasteful.
The standardization of gut microbiome methods also presents challenges to the advancement of research. As a novel investigation discipline, gut microbiome researchers continue active refinement of experimental methods; with such refinement comes the ongoing adoption of new experimental and clinical protocols. Such experimental flux leads to disparities among research approaches and results, potentially invalidating cross-platform comparisons. This issue becomes particularly acute when investigators conduct clinical trials as they often seek to compare their results with those of previous trials. Moreover, the lack of stable, standardized gut microbiome methods may compel investigators to continually revise research protocols—a potentially cost-prohibitive and time-consuming proposition.
Ethical issues, specifically, considerations of informed consent, beneficence, and privacy, also present challenges to microbiome research. Informed consent obligates the investigator to provide an accurate, comprehensive explanation of the proposed experimental intervention; yet, given the complexity and rapidly evolving nature of microbiome experimental methods and protocols, whether investigators can achieve adequate explanations raises ethical concerns. The ethical principle of beneficence directs physicians to advance patients’ interests. Our understanding of the harms, risks, and benefits associated with gut microbiome interventions, though, continues to mature; without a reasonably complete accounting of the side effects associated with the manipulation of the microbiome, the valid achievement of beneficence remains elusive. Finally, concerns for patient privacy arise with gut microbiome research. Gut microbiome research frequently generates copious volumes of patient-specific genomic data; these data potentially link specific patients with serious health risks and active disease states. The completion of research studies may require the publication of all data, including complete genomic sequencing information that potentially reveals patient identity and jeopardizes privacy.
Funding limitations, methods standardization, and ethical concerns threaten the progress of gut microbiome research. The resolution of these challenges promises to accelerate research discovery; the COH academic cancer network model offers a pathway to achieve efficient resolution. The microbiome support services provided through QIIME 2 and other academic departments at COH provide investigators with the most advanced and contemporary tools to assist with the design and execution of microbiome experiments and clinical trials. These tools help ensure not only the highest quality microbiome research but also optimally position investigators for funding success. QIIME 2 has built a reputation as a pioneer in the development of microbiome experimental and computational platforms; furthermore, QIIME 2 makes these platforms openly available to the worldwide microbiome community. Such wide-scale availability promotes the standardization and adoption of universal microbiome research protocols. Lastly, the COH sponsors an expansive portfolio of clinical trials. The COH Institutional Review Board and Clinical Trials Office oversees the ethical and administrative conduct of all trials, including microbiome-focused protocols. Microbiome clinical research adheres to the same strict oversight regulations as other clinical trials at the COH; this adherence helps guarantee maximal patient safety and the protection of personal privacy rights. The COH model of integrated interdepartmental cooperativity illustrates the powerful potential of operational synergism to overcome the emerging challenges associated with gut microbiome research.

12. Summary and Conclusions

Clinicians and scientists increasingly recognize the importance of the microbiome as a guardian of health and defender against cancer. The optimal constitution and function of the colonic microbiome produces eubiosis; disruption of eubiosis leads to dysbiosis and possible oncobiosis and initiation of cancer. The emergence of omic-based approaches in medicine and biology permits a granular understanding of the constitution of the microbiome. Reversing dysbiosis and oncobiosis, we observe, requires a functional understanding of the microbiome.
The quantitative and relational complexity of the microbiome strains our ability to achieve functional insight. Innovative biological and analytic approaches provide workable pathways to increase our understanding of molecular function and devise therapeutic interventions. System biology approaches permit tractable means of understanding functional relationships among vast arrays of bacterial data. Artificial intelligence allows us to develop an understanding of interactions among immensely complex microbiome events. The practical utilization of systems biology and artificial intelligence requires access to expertise and investigatory resources.
The community oncology and academic cancer center network alliance provides a practical model to access and maximally leverage needed expertise and resources. Community oncology practices provide access to a wide diversity and large volume of patients; academic cancer centers make available specialized expertise and investigational and scientific resources. Together, community oncology practices and academic cancer centers synergize to accelerate microbiome discovery. The COH national cancer center network illustrates the potential of team synergism. COH possesses the requisite elements—patients, academic resources, and an integrated cancer treatment network—to maximally advance microbiome-based research and therapeutic development.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Gilbert, J.A.; Blaser, M.J.; Caporaso, J.G.; Jansson, J.K.; Lynch, S.V.; Knight, R. Current understanding of the human microbiome. Nat. Med. 2018, 24, 392–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Elinav, E.; Garrett, W.S.; Trinchieri, G.; Wargo, J. The cancer microbiome. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2019, 19, 371–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Blaser, M.; Bork, P.; Fraser, C.; Knight, R.; Wang, J. The microbiome explored: Recent insights and future challenges. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 11, 213–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Donaldson, G.P.; Lee, S.M.; Mazmanian, S.K. Gut biogeography of the bacterial microbiota. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2016, 14, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Reynoso-García, J.; Miranda-Santiago, A.E.; Meléndez-Vázquez, N.M.; Acosta-Pagán, K.; Sánchez-Rosado, M.; Díaz-Rivera, J.; Rosado-Quiñones, A.M.; Acevedo-Márquez, L.; Cruz-Roldán, L.; Tosado-Rodríguez, E.L. A complete guide to human microbiomes: Body niches, transmission, development, dysbiosis, and restoration. Front. Syst. Biol. 2022, 2, 951403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Hou, K.; Wu, Z.-X.; Chen, X.-Y.; Wang, J.-Q.; Zhang, D.; Xiao, C.; Zhu, D.; Koya, J.B.; Wei, L.; Li, J.; et al. Microbiota in health and diseases. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2022, 7, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Afzaal, M.; Saeed, F.; Shah, Y.A.; Hussain, M.; Rabail, R.; Socol, C.T.; Hassoun, A.; Pateiro, M.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Rusu, A.V. Human gut microbiota in health and disease: Unveiling the relationship. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 999001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fan, Y.; Pedersen, O. Gut microbiota in human metabolic health and disease. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 19, 55–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kordahi, M.C.; Stanaway, I.B.; Avril, M.; Chac, D.; Blanc, M.P.; Ross, B.; Diener, C.; Jain, S.; McCleary, P.; Parker, A.; et al. Genomic and functional characterization of a mucosal symbiont involved in early-stage colorectal cancer. Cell Host Microbe 2021, 29, 1589–1598 e1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Guo, S.; Chen, J.; Chen, F.; Zeng, Q.; Liu, W.L.; Zhang, G. Exosomes derived from Fusobacterium nucleatum-infected colorectal cancer cells facilitate tumour metastasis by selectively carrying miR-1246/92b-3p/27a-3p and CXCL16. Gut 2021, 70, 1507–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Aggarwal, N.; Kitano, S.; Puah, G.R.Y.; Kittelmann, S.; Hwang, I.Y.; Chang, M.W. Microbiome and Human Health: Current Understanding, Engineering, and Enabling Technologies. Chem. Rev. 2023, 123, 31–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. De Vos, W.M.; Tilg, H.; Van Hul, M.; Cani, P.D. Gut microbiome and health: Mechanistic insights. Gut 2022, 71, 1020–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. McCallum, G.; Tropini, C. The gut microbiota and its biogeography. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2024, 22, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ağagündüz, D.; Cocozza, E.; Cemali, Ö.; Bayazıt, A.D.; Nanì, M.F.; Cerqua, I.; Morgillo, F.; Saygili, S.K.; Berni Canani, R.; Amero, P.; et al. Understanding the role of the gut microbiome in gastrointestinal cancer: A review. Front. Pharmacol. 2023, 14, 1130562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Eloe-Fadrosh, E.A.; Rasko, D.A. The human microbiome: From symbiosis to pathogenesis. Annu. Rev. Med. 2013, 64, 145–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Haque, S.Z.; Haque, M. The ecological community of commensal, symbiotic, and pathogenic gastrointestinal microorganisms—An appraisal. Clin. Exp. Gastroenterol. 2017, 10, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Mohajeri, M.H.; Brummer, R.J.M.; Rastall, R.A.; Weersma, R.K.; Harmsen, H.J.M.; Faas, M.; Eggersdorfer, M. The role of the microbiome for human health: From basic science to clinical applications. Eur. J. Nutr. 2018, 57, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Murphy, K.; O’Donovan, A.N.; Caplice, N.M.; Ross, R.P.; Stanton, C. Exploring the Gut Microbiota and Cardiovascular Disease. Metabolites 2021, 11, 493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Hitch, T.C.A.; Hall, L.J.; Walsh, S.K.; Leventhal, G.E.; Slack, E.; de Wouters, T.; Walter, J.; Clavel, T. Microbiome-based interventions to modulate gut ecology and the immune system. Mucosal Immunol. 2022, 15, 1095–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zheng, D.; Liwinski, T.; Elinav, E. Interaction between microbiota and immunity in health and disease. Cell Res. 2020, 30, 492–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kumar, M.; Singh, P.; Murugesan, S.; Vetizou, M.; McCulloch, J.; Badger, J.H.; Trinchieri, G.; Al Khodor, S. Microbiome as an Immunological Modifier. Methods Mol. Biol. 2020, 2055, 595–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Milani, C.; Duranti, S.; Bottacini, F.; Casey, E.; Turroni, F.; Mahony, J.; Belzer, C.; Delgado Palacio, S.; Arboleya Montes, S.; Mancabelli, L.; et al. The First Microbial Colonizers of the Human Gut: Composition, Activities, and Health Implications of the Infant Gut Microbiota. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2017, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Mueller, N.T.; Bakacs, E.; Combellick, J.; Grigoryan, Z.; Dominguez-Bello, M.G. The infant microbiome development: Mom matters. Trends Mol. Med. 2015, 21, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Barker-Tejeda, T.C.; Zubeldia-Varela, E.; Macías-Camero, A.; Alonso, L.; Martín-Antoniano, I.A.; Rey-Stolle, M.F.; Mera-Berriatua, L.; Bazire, R.; Cabrera-Freitag, P.; Shanmuganathan, M.; et al. Comparative characterization of the infant gut microbiome and their maternal lineage by a multi-omics approach. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 3004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ferretti, P.; Pasolli, E.; Tett, A.; Asnicar, F.; Gorfer, V.; Fedi, S.; Armanini, F.; Truong, D.T.; Manara, S.; Zolfo, M.; et al. Mother-to-Infant Microbial Transmission from Different Body Sites Shapes the Developing Infant Gut Microbiome. Cell Host Microbe 2018, 24, 133–145.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Bäckhed, F.; Roswall, J.; Peng, Y.; Feng, Q.; Jia, H.; Kovatcheva-Datchary, P.; Li, Y.; Xia, Y.; Xie, H.; Zhong, H.; et al. Dynamics and Stabilization of the Human Gut Microbiome during the First Year of Life. Cell Host Microbe 2015, 17, 690–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Praveen, P.; Jordan, F.; Priami, C.; Morine, M.J. The role of breast-feeding in infant immune system: A systems perspective on the intestinal microbiome. Microbiome 2015, 3, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Catassi, G.; Aloi, M.; Giorgio, V.; Gasbarrini, A.; Cammarota, G.; Ianiro, G. The Role of Diet and Nutritional Interventions for the Infant Gut Microbiome. Nutrients 2024, 16, 400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Laursen, M.F. Gut Microbiota Development: Influence of Diet from Infancy to Toddlerhood. Ann. Nutr. Metab. 2021, 77, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Patangia, D.V.; Anthony Ryan, C.; Dempsey, E.; Paul Ross, R.; Stanton, C. Impact of antibiotics on the human microbiome and consequences for host health. Microbiologyopen 2022, 11, e1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ramirez, J.; Guarner, F.; Bustos Fernandez, L.; Maruy, A.; Sdepanian, V.L.; Cohen, H. Antibiotics as Major Disruptors of Gut Microbiota. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 572912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Mullish, B.H.; Williams, H.R. Clostridium difficile infection and antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. Clin. Med. 2018, 18, 237–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Theriot, C.M.; Young, V.B. Interactions Between the Gastrointestinal Microbiome and Clostridium difficile. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2015, 69, 445–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Seekatz, A.M.; Young, V.B. Clostridium difficile and the microbiota. J. Clin. Investig. 2014, 124, 4182–4189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Martinez, E.; Taminiau, B.; Rodriguez, C.; Daube, G. Gut Microbiota Composition Associated with Clostridioides difficile Colonization and Infection. Pathogens 2022, 11, 781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Brandt, L.J.; Borody, T.J.; Campbell, J. Endoscopic fecal microbiota transplantation: “first-line” treatment for severe clostridium difficile infection? J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2011, 45, 655–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Valdés-Varela, L.; Gueimonde, M.; Ruas-Madiedo, P. Probiotics for Prevention and Treatment of Clostridium difficile Infection. In Updates on Clostridioides Difficile in Europe: Advances in Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and Public Health Volume 18; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 101–116. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sadrekarimi, H.; Gardanova, Z.R.; Bakhshesh, M.; Ebrahimzadeh, F.; Yaseri, A.F.; Thangavelu, L.; Hasanpoor, Z.; Zadeh, F.A.; Kahrizi, M.S. Emerging role of human microbiome in cancer development and response to therapy: Special focus on intestinal microflora. J. Transl. Med. 2022, 20, 301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Maddern, A.S.; Coller, J.K.; Bowen, J.M.; Gibson, R.J. The Association between the Gut Microbiome and Development and Progression of Cancer Treatment Adverse Effects. Cancers 2023, 15, 4301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kunika; Frey, N.; Rangrez, A.Y. Exploring the Involvement of Gut Microbiota in Cancer Therapy-Induced Cardiotoxicity. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 7261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sun, J.; Chen, F.; Wu, G. Potential effects of gut microbiota on host cancers: Focus on immunity, DNA damage, cellular pathways, and anticancer therapy. ISME J. 2023, 17, 1535–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ma, W.; Mao, Q.; Xia, W.; Dong, G.; Yu, C.; Jiang, F. Gut Microbiota Shapes the Efficiency of Cancer Therapy. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Al Bander, Z.; Nitert, M.D.; Mousa, A.; Naderpoor, N. The Gut Microbiota and Inflammation: An Overview. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Allen, J.; Sears, C.L. Impact of the gut microbiome on the genome and epigenome of colon epithelial cells: Contributions to colorectal cancer development. Genome Med. 2019, 11, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Lichtenstern, C.R.; Lamichhane-Khadka, R. A tale of two bacteria–Bacteroides fragilis, Escherichia coli, and colorectal cancer. Front. Bacteriol. 2023, 2, 1229077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ou, S.; Wang, H.; Tao, Y.; Luo, K.; Ye, J.; Ran, S.; Guan, Z.; Wang, Y.; Hu, H.; Huang, R. Fusobacterium nucleatum and colorectal cancer: From phenomenon to mechanism. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 1020583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rubinstein, M.R.; Wang, X.; Liu, W.; Hao, Y.; Cai, G.; Han, Y.W. Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes colorectal carcinogenesis by modulating E-cadherin/β-catenin signaling via its FadA adhesin. Cell Host Microbe 2013, 14, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Dubinsky, V.; Dotan, I.; Gophna, U. Carriage of Colibactin-producing Bacteria and Colorectal Cancer Risk. Trends Microbiol. 2020, 28, 874–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Arthur, J.C. Microbiota and colorectal cancer: Colibactin makes its mark. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 17, 317–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lucafò, M.; Curci, D.; Franzin, M.; Decorti, G.; Stocco, G. Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: An Overview From Pathophysiology to Pharmacological Prevention. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 772101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Terlouw, D.; Boot, A.; Ducarmon, Q.R.; Nooij, S.; Suerink, M.; van Leerdam, M.E.; van Egmond, D.; Tops, C.M.; Zwittink, R.D.; Ruano, D. Enrichment of colibactin-associated mutational signatures in unexplained colorectal polyposis patients. BMC Cancer 2024, 24, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. White, M.T.; Sears, C.L. The microbial landscape of colorectal cancer. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2024, 22, 240–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Viswanathan, S.; Parida, S.; Lingipilli, B.T.; Krishnan, R.; Podipireddy, D.R.; Muniraj, N. Role of Gut Microbiota in Breast Cancer and Drug Resistance. Pathogens 2023, 12, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Arnone, A.A.; Cook, K.L. Gut and Breast Microbiota as Endocrine Regulators of Hormone Receptor-positive Breast Cancer Risk and Therapy Response. Endocrinology 2022, 164, bqac177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Bernardo, G.; Le Noci, V.; Di Modica, M.; Montanari, E.; Triulzi, T.; Pupa, S.M.; Tagliabue, E.; Sommariva, M.; Sfondrini, L. The Emerging Role of the Microbiota in Breast Cancer Progression. Cells 2023, 12, 1945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Fujita, K.; Matsushita, M.; Banno, E.; De Velasco, M.A.; Hatano, K.; Nonomura, N.; Uemura, H. Gut microbiome and prostate cancer. Int. J. Urol. 2022, 29, 793–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Fujita, K.; Matsushita, M.; De Velasco, M.A.; Hatano, K.; Minami, T.; Nonomura, N.; Uemura, H. The Gut-Prostate Axis: A New Perspective of Prostate Cancer Biology through the Gut Microbiome. Cancers 2023, 15, 1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Zhao, Y.; Liu, Y.; Li, S.; Peng, Z.; Liu, X.; Chen, J.; Zheng, X. Role of lung and gut microbiota on lung cancer pathogenesis. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 147, 2177–2186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Du, Y.; Wang, Q.; Zheng, Z.; Zhou, H.; Han, Y.; Qi, A.; Jiao, L.; Gong, Y. Gut microbiota influence on lung cancer risk through blood metabolite mediation: From a comprehensive Mendelian randomization analysis and genetic analysis. Front. Nutr. 2024, 11, 1425802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Liu, X.; Cheng, Y.; Zang, D.; Zhang, M.; Li, X.; Liu, D.; Gao, B.; Zhou, H.; Sun, J.; Han, X.; et al. The Role of Gut Microbiota in Lung Cancer: From Carcinogenesis to Immunotherapy. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 720842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Oh, B.; Boyle, F.; Pavlakis, N.; Clarke, S.; Guminski, A.; Eade, T.; Lamoury, G.; Carroll, S.; Morgia, M.; Kneebone, A.; et al. Emerging Evidence of the Gut Microbiome in Chemotherapy: A Clinical Review. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 706331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ervin, S.M.; Ramanan, S.V.; Bhatt, A.P. Relationship Between the Gut Microbiome and Systemic Chemotherapy. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2020, 65, 874–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Bilenduke, E.; Sterrett, J.D.; Ranby, K.W.; Borges, V.F.; Grigsby, J.; Carr, A.L.; Kilbourn, K.; Lowry, C.A. Impacts of breast cancer and chemotherapy on gut microbiome, cognitive functioning, and mood relative to healthy controls. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 19547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chrysostomou, D.; Roberts, L.A.; Marchesi, J.R.; Kinross, J.M. Gut microbiota modulation of efficacy and toxicity of cancer chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Gastroenterology 2023, 164, 198–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Li, S.; Zhu, S.; Yu, J. The role of gut microbiota and metabolites in cancer chemotherapy. J. Adv. Res. 2024, 64, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Fei, Z.; Lijuan, Y.; Xi, Y.; Wei, W.; Jing, Z.; Miao, D.; Shuwen, H. Gut microbiome associated with chemotherapy-induced diarrhea from the CapeOX regimen as adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage III colorectal cancer. Gut Pathog. 2019, 11, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Roggiani, S.; Mengoli, M.; Conti, G.; Fabbrini, M.; Brigidi, P.; Barone, M.; D’Amico, F.; Turroni, S. Gut microbiota resilience and recovery after anticancer chemotherapy. Microbiome Res. Rep. 2023, 2, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Touchefeu, Y.; Montassier, E.; Nieman, K.; Gastinne, T.; Potel, G.; Bruley des Varannes, S.; Le Vacon, F.; de La Cochetière, M.F. Systematic review: The role of the gut microbiota in chemotherapy- or radiation-induced gastrointestinal mucositis—Current evidence and potential clinical applications. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2014, 40, 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wei, L.; Wen, X.S.; Xian, C.J. Chemotherapy-Induced Intestinal Microbiota Dysbiosis Impairs Mucosal Homeostasis by Modulating Toll-like Receptor Signaling Pathways. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 9474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhao, X.; Wu, H.; Zhu, R.; Shang, G.; Wei, J.; Shang, H.; Tian, P.; Chen, T.; Wei, H. Combination of thalidomide and Clostridium butyricum relieves chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting via gut microbiota and vagus nerve activity modulation. Front. Immunol. 2023, 14, 1220165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Deleemans, J.M.; Chleilat, F.; Reimer, R.A.; Baydoun, M.; Piedalue, K.A.; Lowry, D.E.; Henning, J.W.; Carlson, L.E. The Chemo-Gut Pilot Study: Associations between Gut Microbiota, Gastrointestinal Symptoms, and Psychosocial Health Outcomes in a Cross-Sectional Sample of Young Adult Cancer Survivors. Curr. Oncol. 2022, 29, 2973–2994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Montassier, E.; Gastinne, T.; Vangay, P.; Al-Ghalith, G.; Bruley des Varannes, S.; Massart, S.; Moreau, P.; Potel, G.; de La Cochetière, M.; Batard, E. Chemotherapy-driven dysbiosis in the intestinal microbiome. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2015, 42, 515–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Chamseddine, A.N.; Ducreux, M.; Armand, J.P.; Paoletti, X.; Satar, T.; Paci, A.; Mir, O. Intestinal bacterial β-glucuronidase as a possible predictive biomarker of irinotecan-induced diarrhea severity. Pharmacol. Ther. 2019, 199, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Wallace, B.D.; Roberts, A.B.; Pollet, R.M.; Ingle, J.D.; Biernat, K.A.; Pellock, S.J.; Venkatesh, M.K.; Guthrie, L.; O’Neal, S.K.; Robinson, S.J.; et al. Structure and Inhibition of Microbiome β-Glucuronidases Essential to the Alleviation of Cancer Drug Toxicity. Chem. Biol. 2015, 22, 1238–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Lin, D.; Hu, B.; Li, P.; Zhao, Y.; Xu, Y.; Wu, D. Roles of the intestinal microbiota and microbial metabolites in acute GVHD. Exp. Hematol. Oncol. 2021, 10, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Häcker, G. GVHD prediction based on the microbiome. Blood 2022, 140, 2313–2314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Fredricks, D.N. The gut microbiota and graft-versus-host disease. J. Clin. Investig. 2019, 129, 1808–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Burgos da Silva, M.; Ponce, D.M.; Dai, A.; Devlin, S.M.; Gomes, A.L.C.; Moore, G.; Slingerland, J.; Shouval, R.; Armijo, G.K.; DeWolf, S.; et al. Preservation of the fecal microbiome is associated with reduced severity of graft-versus-host disease. Blood 2022, 140, 2385–2397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Knisely, A.; Seo, Y.D.; Wargo, J.A.; Chelvanambi, M. Monitoring and Modulating Diet and Gut Microbes to Enhance Response and Reduce Toxicity to Cancer Treatment. Cancers 2023, 15, 777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kouidhi, S.; Zidi, O.; Belkhiria, Z.; Rais, H.; Ayadi, A.; Ben Ayed, F.; Mosbah, A.; Cherif, A.; El Gaaied, A.B.A. Gut microbiota, an emergent target to shape the efficiency of cancer therapy. Explor. Target. Antitumor Ther. 2023, 4, 240–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Alexander, J.L.; Wilson, I.D.; Teare, J.; Marchesi, J.R.; Nicholson, J.K.; Kinross, J.M. Gut microbiota modulation of chemotherapy efficacy and toxicity. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017, 14, 356–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gori, S.; Inno, A.; Belluomini, L.; Bocus, P.; Bisoffi, Z.; Russo, A.; Arcaro, G. Gut microbiota and cancer: How gut microbiota modulates activity, efficacy and toxicity of antitumoral therapy. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2019, 143, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Li, W.; Deng, Y.; Chu, Q.; Zhang, P. Gut microbiome and cancer immunotherapy. Cancer Lett. 2019, 447, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Pouncey, A.L.; Scott, A.J.; Alexander, J.L.; Marchesi, J.; Kinross, J. Gut microbiota, chemotherapy and the host: The influence of the gut microbiota on cancer treatment. Ecancermedicalscience 2018, 12, 868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Yan, A.; Culp, E.; Perry, J.; Lau, J.T.; MacNeil, L.T.; Surette, M.G.; Wright, G.D. Transformation of the Anticancer Drug Doxorubicin in the Human Gut Microbiome. ACS Infect. Dis. 2018, 4, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Gonçalves-Nobre, J.G.; Gaspar, I.; Alpuim Costa, D. Anthracyclines and trastuzumab associated cardiotoxicity: Is the gut microbiota a friend or foe?–a mini-review. Front. Microbiomes 2023, 2, 1217820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Bawaneh, A.; Wilson, A.S.; Levi, N.; Howard-McNatt, M.M.; Chiba, A.; Soto-Pantoja, D.R.; Cook, K.L. Intestinal microbiota influence doxorubicin responsiveness in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancers 2022, 14, 4849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Westman, E.L.; Canova, M.J.; Radhi, I.J.; Koteva, K.; Kireeva, I.; Waglechner, N.; Wright, G.D. Bacterial Inactivation of the Anticancer Drug Doxorubicin. Chem. Biol. 2012, 19, 1255–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Le Ngoc, K.; Pham, T.T.H.; Nguyen, T.K.; Huong, P.T. Pharmacomicrobiomics in precision cancer therapy: Bench to bedside. Front. Immunol. 2024, 15, 1428420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zhao, Q.; Chen, Y.; Huang, W.; Zhou, H.; Zhang, W. Drug-microbiota interactions: An emerging priority for precision medicine. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2023, 8, 386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Di Modica, M.; Gargari, G.; Regondi, V.; Bonizzi, A.; Arioli, S.; Belmonte, B.; De Cecco, L.; Fasano, E.; Bianchi, F.; Bertolotti, A. Gut microbiota condition the therapeutic efficacy of trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2021, 81, 2195–2206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Martini, G.; Ciardiello, D.; Dallio, M.; Famiglietti, V.; Esposito, L.; Corte, C.M.D.; Napolitano, S.; Fasano, M.; Gravina, A.G.; Romano, M.; et al. Gut microbiota correlates with antitumor activity in patients with mCRC and NSCLC treated with cetuximab plus avelumab. Int. J. Cancer 2022, 151, 473–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Ryu, T.Y.; Kim, K.; Han, T.-S.; Lee, M.-O.; Lee, J.; Choi, J.; Jung, K.B.; Jeong, E.-J.; An, D.M.; Jung, C.-R.; et al. Human gut-microbiome-derived propionate coordinates proteasomal degradation via HECTD2 upregulation to target EHMT2 in colorectal cancer. ISME J. 2022, 16, 1205–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Kang, X.; Lau, H.C.-H.; Yu, J. Modulating gut microbiome in cancer immunotherapy: Harnessing microbes to enhance treatment efficacy. Cell Rep. Med. 2024, 5, 101478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Aghamajidi, A.; Maleki Vareki, S. The Effect of the Gut Microbiota on Systemic and Anti-Tumor Immunity and Response to Systemic Therapy against Cancer. Cancers 2022, 14, 3563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Xia, L.; Zhu, X.; Wang, Y.; Lu, S. The gut microbiota improves the efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy against tumors: From association to cause and effect. Cancer Lett. 2024, 598, 217123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Lu, Y.; Yuan, X.; Wang, M.; He, Z.; Li, H.; Wang, J.; Li, Q. Gut microbiota influence immunotherapy responses: Mechanisms and therapeutic strategies. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2022, 15, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Yousefi, Y.; Baines, K.J.; Maleki Vareki, S. Microbiome bacterial influencers of host immunity and response to immunotherapy. Cell Rep. Med. 2024, 5, 101487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pezo, R.C.; Wong, M.; Martin, A. Impact of the gut microbiota on immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated toxicities. Ther. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2019, 12, 1756284819870911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Asokan, S.; Cullin, N.; Stein-Thoeringer, C.K.; Elinav, E. CAR-T Cell Therapy and the Gut Microbiota. Cancers 2023, 15, 794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Smith, M.; Dai, A.; Ghilardi, G.; Amelsberg, K.V.; Devlin, S.M.; Pajarillo, R.; Slingerland, J.B.; Beghi, S.; Herrera, P.S.; Giardina, P. Gut microbiome correlates of response and toxicity following anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapy. Nat. Med. 2022, 28, 713–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Gabrielli, G.; Shouval, R.; Ghilardi, G.; van den Brink, M.; Ruella, M. Harnessing the Gut Microbiota to Potentiate the Efficacy of CAR T Cell Therapy. Hemasphere 2023, 7, e950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. eBioMedicine. Emerging role of microbes in cancer development and anti-cancer therapy. eBioMedicine 2024, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Hirayama, M.; Nishiwaki, H.; Hamaguchi, T.; Ito, M.; Ueyama, J.; Maeda, T.; Kashihara, K.; Tsuboi, Y.; Ohno, K. Intestinal Collinsella may mitigate infection and exacerbation of COVID-19 by producing ursodeoxycholate. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0260451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Hu, Y.; Li, J.; Ni, F.; Yang, Z.; Gui, X.; Bao, Z.; Zhao, H.; Wei, G.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, M.; et al. CAR-T cell therapy-related cytokine release syndrome and therapeutic response is modulated by the gut microbiome in hematologic malignancies. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 5313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Ottman, N.; Smidt, H.; de Vos, W.M.; Belzer, C. The function of our microbiota: Who is out there and what do they do? Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2012, 2, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Blaut, M. Composition and Function of the Gut Microbiome. In The Gut Microbiome in Health and Disease, Haller, D., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 5–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Ezzamouri, B.; Shoaie, S.; Ledesma-Amaro, R. Synergies of Systems Biology and Synthetic Biology in Human Microbiome Studies. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 681982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Altay, O.; Nielsen, J.; Uhlen, M.; Boren, J.; Mardinoglu, A. Systems biology perspective for studying the gut microbiota in human physiology and liver diseases. EBioMedicine 2019, 49, 364–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Hernández Medina, R.; Kutuzova, S.; Nielsen, K.N.; Johansen, J.; Hansen, L.H.; Nielsen, M.; Rasmussen, S. Machine learning and deep learning applications in microbiome research. ISME Commun. 2022, 2, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Sun, T.; Niu, X.; He, Q.; Chen, F.; Qi, R.-Q. Artificial Intelligence in microbiomes analysis: A review of applications in dermatology. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1112010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Wang, W.L.; Xu, S.Y.; Ren, Z.G.; Tao, L.; Jiang, J.W.; Zheng, S.S. Application of metagenomics in the human gut microbiome. World J. Gastroenterol. 2015, 21, 803–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Martín, R.; Miquel, S.; Langella, P.; Bermúdez-Humarán, L.G. The role of metagenomics in understanding the human microbiome in health and disease. Virulence 2014, 5, 413–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Zhang, L.; Chen, F.; Zeng, Z.; Xu, M.; Sun, F.; Yang, L.; Bi, X.; Lin, Y.; Gao, Y.; Hao, H.; et al. Advances in Metagenomics and Its Application in Environmental Microorganisms. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 766364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Kim, N.; Ma, J.; Kim, W.; Kim, J.; Belenky, P.; Lee, I. Genome-resolved metagenomics: A game changer for microbiome medicine. Exp. Mol. Med. 2024, 56, 1501–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Yen, S.; Johnson, J.S. Metagenomics: A path to understanding the gut microbiome. Mamm. Genome 2021, 32, 282–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Zhang, W.; An, Y.; Qin, X.; Wu, X.; Wang, X.; Hou, H.; Song, X.; Liu, T.; Wang, B.; Huang, X.; et al. Gut Microbiota-Derived Metabolites in Colorectal Cancer: The Bad and the Challenges. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 739648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Huang, J.T.; Mao, Y.Q. The impact of the microbiome in cancer: Targeting metabolism of cancer cells and host. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 1029033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Coker, O.O.; Liu, C.; Wu, W.K.K.; Wong, S.H.; Jia, W.; Sung, J.J.Y.; Yu, J. Altered gut metabolites and microbiota interactions are implicated in colorectal carcinogenesis and can be non-invasive diagnostic biomarkers. Microbiome 2022, 10, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. He, Y.; Fu, L.; Li, Y.; Wang, W.; Gong, M.; Zhang, J.; Dong, X.; Huang, J.; Wang, Q.; Mackay, C.R.; et al. Gut microbial metabolites facilitate anticancer therapy efficacy by modulating cytotoxic CD8(+) T cell immunity. Cell Metab. 2021, 33, 988–1000.e1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Bauermeister, A.; Mannochio-Russo, H.; Costa-Lotufo, L.V.; Jarmusch, A.K.; Dorrestein, P.C. Mass spectrometry-based metabolomics in microbiome investigations. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2022, 20, 143–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Zhou, L.; Yu, D.; Zheng, S.; Ouyang, R.; Wang, Y.; Xu, G. Gut microbiota-related metabolome analysis based on chromatography-mass spectrometry. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2021, 143, 116375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Han, S.; Guiberson, E.R.; Li, Y.; Sonnenburg, J.L. High-throughput identification of gut microbiome-dependent metabolites. Nat. Protoc. 2024, 19, 2180–2205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Awad, H.; Khamis, M.M.; El-Aneed, A. Mass spectrometry, review of the basics: Ionization. Appl. Spectrosc. Rev. 2015, 50, 158–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. El-Aneed, A.; Cohen, A.; Banoub, J. Mass spectrometry, review of the basics: Electrospray, MALDI, and commonly used mass analyzers. Appl. Spectrosc. Rev. 2009, 44, 210–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Fang, A.S.; Miao, X.; Tidswell, P.W.; Towle, M.H.; Goetzinger, W.K.; Kyranos, J.N. Mass spectrometry analysis of new chemical entities for pharmaceutical discovery. Mass. Spectrom. Rev. 2008, 27, 20–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Dias, D.A.; Jones, O.A.; Beale, D.J.; Boughton, B.A.; Benheim, D.; Kouremenos, K.A.; Wolfender, J.-L.; Wishart, D.S. Current and future perspectives on the structural identification of small molecules in biological systems. Metabolites 2016, 6, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Liu, F.C.; Ridgeway, M.E.; Park, M.A.; Bleiholder, C. Tandem-trapped ion mobility spectrometry/mass spectrometry (t TIMS/MS): A promising analytical method for investigating heterogenous samples. Analyst 2022, 147, 2317–2337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zhao, Z.-X.; Wang, H.-Y.; Guo, Y.-L. Studies of heterogeneous/homogeneous ion-molecule reactions by ambient ionization mass spectrometry. Curr. Org. Chem. 2011, 15, 3734–3749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Villas-Bôas, S.G.; Mas, S.; Åkesson, M.; Smedsgaard, J.; Nielsen, J. Mass spectrometry in metabolome analysis. Mass. Spectrom. Rev. 2005, 24, 613–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Dettmer, K.; Aronov, P.A.; Hammock, B.D. Mass spectrometry-based metabolomics. Mass. Spectrom. Rev. 2007, 26, 51–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Magnúsdóttir, S.; Thiele, I. Modeling metabolism of the human gut microbiome. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2018, 51, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Sharon, G.; Garg, N.; Debelius, J.; Knight, R.; Dorrestein, P.C.; Mazmanian, S.K. Specialized metabolites from the microbiome in health and disease. Cell Metab. 2014, 20, 719–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Tajik, M.; Baharfar, M.; Donald, W.A. Single-cell mass spectrometry. Trends Biotechnol. 2022, 40, 1374–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Zhang, L.; Vertes, A. Single-cell mass spectrometry approaches to explore cellular heterogeneity. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 4466–4477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Slavov, N. Single-cell protein analysis by mass spectrometry. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2021, 60, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Taylor, M.J.; Lukowski, J.K.; Anderton, C.R. Spatially resolved mass spectrometry at the single cell: Recent innovations in proteomics and metabolomics. J. Am. Soc. Mass. Spectrom. 2021, 32, 872–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Ma, S.; Leng, Y.; Li, X.; Meng, Y.; Yin, Z.; Hang, W. High spatial resolution mass spectrometry imaging for spatial metabolomics: Advances, challenges, and future perspectives. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2023, 159, 116902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Matros, A.; Mock, H.-P. Mass spectrometry based imaging techniques for spatially resolved analysis of molecules. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Aretz, I.; Meierhofer, D. Advantages and pitfalls of mass spectrometry based metabolome profiling in systems biology. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Theodoridis, G.; Gika, H.G.; Wilson, I.D. Mass spectrometry-based holistic analytical approaches for metabolite profiling in systems biology studies. Mass. Spectrom. Rev. 2011, 30, 884–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. O’Reilly, F.J.; Rappsilber, J. Cross-linking mass spectrometry: Methods and applications in structural, molecular and systems biology. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2018, 25, 1000–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Milman, B.L. General principles of identification by mass spectrometry. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2015, 69, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Perez-Riverol, Y.; Wang, R.; Hermjakob, H.; Müller, M.; Vesada, V.; Vizcaíno, J.A. Open source libraries and frameworks for mass spectrometry based proteomics: A developer’s perspective. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)-Proteins Proteom. 2014, 1844, 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Knock, B.; Smith, I.; Wright, D.; Ridley, R.; Kelly, W. Compound identification by computer matching of low resolution mass spectra. Anal. Chem. 1970, 42, 1516–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. McLafferty, F.W.; Zhang, M.-Y.; Stauffer, D.B.; Loh, S.Y. Comparison of algorithms and databases for matching unknown mass spectra. J. Am. Soc. Mass. Spectrom. 1998, 9, 92–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Hall, Z.; Politis, A.; Robinson, C.V. Structural modeling of heteromeric protein complexes from disassembly pathways and ion mobility-mass spectrometry. Structure 2012, 20, 1596–1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Biehn, S.E.; Lindert, S. Protein structure prediction with mass spectrometry data. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 2022, 73, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Craig, R.; Cortens, J.; Fenyo, D.; Beavis, R.C. Using annotated peptide mass spectrum libraries for protein identification. J. Proteome Res. 2006, 5, 1843–1849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Frewen, B.E.; Merrihew, G.E.; Wu, C.C.; Noble, W.S.; MacCoss, M.J. Analysis of peptide MS/MS spectra from large-scale proteomics experiments using spectrum libraries. Anal. Chem. 2006, 78, 5678–5684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Youngquist, R.S.; Fuentes, G.R.; Lacey, M.P.; Keough, T. Generation and screening of combinatorial peptide libraries designed for rapid sequencing by mass spectrometry. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 3900–3906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Parizadeh, M.; Arrieta, M.-C. The global human gut microbiome: Genes, lifestyles, and diet. Trends Mol. Med. 2023, 29, 789–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Martinez, J.E.; Kahana, D.D.; Ghuman, S.; Wilson, H.P.; Wilson, J.; Kim, S.C.; Lagishetty, V.; Jacobs, J.P.; Sinha-Hikim, A.P.; Friedman, T.C. Unhealthy lifestyle and gut dysbiosis: A better understanding of the effects of poor diet and nicotine on the intestinal microbiome. Front. Endocrinol. 2021, 12, 667066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Do, N.M. From Leaky Gut to Leaky Skin: A Clinical Review of Lifestyle Influences on the Microbiome. Am. J. Lifestyle Med. 2024, 15598276241292605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Lin, L.; Zhang, J. Role of intestinal microbiota and metabolites on gut homeostasis and human diseases. BMC Immunol. 2017, 18, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Li, Z.; Quan, G.; Jiang, X.; Yang, Y.; Ding, X.; Zhang, D.; Wang, X.; Hardwidge, P.R.; Ren, W.; Zhu, G. Effects of metabolites derived from gut microbiota and hosts on pathogens. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2018, 8, 314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Zechner, E.L.; Kienesberger, S. Microbiota-derived small molecule genotoxins: Host interactions and ecological impact in the gut ecosystem. Gut Microbes 2024, 16, 2430423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Hartl, K.; Sigal, M. Microbe-driven genotoxicity in gastrointestinal carcinogenesis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 7439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Healy, A.R.; Herzon, S.B. Molecular basis of gut microbiome-associated colorectal cancer: A synthetic perspective. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139, 14817–14824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. De Carvalho, C.C.; Caramujo, M.J. The various roles of fatty acids. Molecules 2018, 23, 2583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Das, U.N. Essential fatty acids-a review. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 2006, 7, 467–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Sellin. Short chain fatty acids in health and disease. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 1998, 12, 499–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Tan, J.; McKenzie, C.; Potamitis, M.; Thorburn, A.N.; Mackay, C.R.; Macia, L. The role of short-chain fatty acids in health and disease. Adv. Immunol. 2014, 121, 91–119. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  164. Scheppach, W.; Bartram, H.; Richter, F. Role of short-chain fatty acids in the prevention of colorectal cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 1995, 31, 1077–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Mirzaei, R.; Afaghi, A.; Babakhani, S.; Sohrabi, M.R.; Hosseini-Fard, S.R.; Babolhavaeji, K.; Akbari, S.K.A.; Yousefimashouf, R.; Karampoor, S. Role of microbiota-derived short-chain fatty acids in cancer development and prevention. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2021, 139, 111619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Feitelson, M.A.; Arzumanyan, A.; Medhat, A.; Spector, I. Short-chain fatty acids in cancer pathogenesis. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2023, 42, 677–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Fusco, W.; Lorenzo, M.B.; Cintoni, M.; Porcari, S.; Rinninella, E.; Kaitsas, F.; Lener, E.; Mele, M.C.; Gasbarrini, A.; Collado, M.C.; et al. Short-Chain Fatty-Acid-Producing Bacteria: Key Components of the Human Gut Microbiota. Nutrients 2023, 15, 2211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Deleu, S.; Machiels, K.; Raes, J.; Verbeke, K.; Vermeire, S. Short chain fatty acids and its producing organisms: An overlooked therapy for IBD? eBioMedicine 2021, 66, 103293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Zeb, F.; Naqeeb, H.; Osaili, T.; Faris, M.E.; Ismail, L.C.; Obaid, R.S.; Naja, F.; Radwan, H.; Hasan, H.; Hashim, M.; et al. Molecular crosstalk between polyphenols and gut microbiota in cancer prevention. Nutr. Res. 2024, 124, 21–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Zhou, Y.; Zheng, J.; Li, Y.; Xu, D.P.; Li, S.; Chen, Y.M.; Li, H.B. Natural Polyphenols for Prevention and Treatment of Cancer. Nutrients 2016, 8, 515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Rasouli, H.; Farzaei, M.H.; Khodarahmi, R. Polyphenols and their benefits: A review. Int. J. Food Prop. 2017, 20, 1700–1741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Abbas, M.; Saeed, F.; Anjum, F.M.; Afzaal, M.; Tufail, T.; Bashir, M.S.; Ishtiaq, A.; Hussain, S.; Suleria, H.A.R. Natural polyphenols: An overview. Int. J. Food Prop. 2017, 20, 1689–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Guo, J.; Wang, P.; Cui, Y.; Hu, X.; Chen, F.; Ma, C. Protective Effects of Hydroxyphenyl Propionic Acids on Lipid Metabolism and Gut Microbiota in Mice Fed a High-Fat Diet. Nutrients 2023, 15, 1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Wang, P.; Wang, R.; Zhao, W.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, D.; Zhao, S.; Ge, Z.; Ma, Y.; Zhao, X. Gut microbiota-derived 4-hydroxyphenylacetic acid from resveratrol supplementation prevents obesity through SIRT1 signaling activation. Gut Microbes 2025, 17, 2446391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. García-Villalba, R.; Giménez-Bastida, J.A.; Cortés-Martín, A.; Ávila-Gálvez, M.; Tomás-Barberán, F.A.; Selma, M.V.; Espín, J.C.; González-Sarrías, A. Urolithins: A Comprehensive Update on their Metabolism, Bioactivity, and Associated Gut Microbiota. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2022, 66, e2101019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Hervert-Hernández, D.; Goñi, I. Dietary polyphenols and human gut microbiota: A review. Food Rev. Int. 2011, 27, 154–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Wang, X.; Qi, Y.; Zheng, H. Dietary polyphenol, gut microbiota, and health benefits. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. La Rosa, G.; Lonardo, M.S.; Cacciapuoti, N.; Muscariello, E.; Guida, B.; Faraonio, R.; Santillo, M.; Damiano, S. Dietary polyphenols, microbiome, and multiple sclerosis: From molecular anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective mechanisms to clinical evidence. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 7247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Li, H.; Christman, L.M.; Li, R.; Gu, L. Synergic interactions between polyphenols and gut microbiota in mitigating inflammatory bowel diseases. Food Funct. 2020, 11, 4878–4891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Sánchez-Alcoholado, L.; Ramos-Molina, B.; Otero, A.; Laborda-Illanes, A.; Ordóñez, R.; Medina, J.A.; Gómez-Millán, J.; Queipo-Ortuño, M.I. The role of the gut microbiome in colorectal cancer development and therapy response. Cancers 2020, 12, 1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Piekarska-Radzik, L.; Klewicka, E. Mutual influence of polyphenols and Lactobacillus spp. bacteria in food: A review. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2021, 247, 9–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Zhang, Y.; Yu, W.; Zhang, L.; Wang, M.; Chang, W. The Interaction of Polyphenols and the Gut Microbiota in Neurodegenerative Diseases. Nutrients 2022, 14, 5373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Corrêa, T.A.F.; Rogero, M.M.; Hassimotto, N.M.A.; Lajolo, F.M. The Two-Way Polyphenols-Microbiota Interactions and Their Effects on Obesity and Related Metabolic Diseases. Front. Nutr. 2019, 6, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Ferreira-Halder, C.V.; Faria, A.V.d.S.; Andrade, S.S. Action and function of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii in health and disease. Best. Pract. Res. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2017, 31, 643–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Vlahcevic, R.Z.; Heuman, D.M.; Hylemon, P.B. Regulation of bile acid synthesis. Hepatology 1991, 13, 590–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  186. Barth, C. Regulation and interaction of cholesterol, bile salt and lipoprotein synthesis in liver. Klin. Wochenschr. 1983, 61, 1163–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Allen, K.; Jaeschke, H.; Copple, B.L. Bile acids induce inflammatory genes in hepatocytes: A novel mechanism of inflammation during obstructive cholestasis. Am. J. Pathol. 2011, 178, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Pavlidis, P.; Powell, N.; Vincent, R.; Ehrlich, D.; Bjarnason, I.; Hayee, B. Systematic review: Bile acids and intestinal inflammation-luminal aggressors or regulators of mucosal defence? Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2015, 42, 802–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Li, M.; Cai, S.-Y.; Boyer, J.L. Mechanisms of bile acid mediated inflammation in the liver. Mol. Asp. Med. 2017, 56, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Kandell, R.L.; Bernstein, C. Bile salt/acid induction of DNA damage in bacterial and mammalian cells: Implications for colon cancer. Nutr. Cancer 1991, 16, 227–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Dvorak, K.; Payne, C.M.; Chavarria, M.; Ramsey, L.; Dvorakova, B.; Bernstein, H.; Holubec, H.; Sampliner, R.E.; Guy, N.; Condon, A. Bile acids in combination with low pH induce oxidative stress and oxidative DNA damage: Relevance to the pathogenesis of Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut 2007, 56, 763–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Deuk Kim, N.; Im, E.; Hyun Yoo, Y.; Hyun Choi, Y. Modulation of the cell cycle and induction of apoptosis in human cancer cells by synthetic bile acids. Curr. Cancer Drug Targets 2006, 6, 681–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Gándola, Y.B.; Fontana, C.; Bojorge, M.A.; Luschnat, T.T.; Moretton, M.A.; Chiapetta, D.A.; Verstraeten, S.V.; González, L. Concentration-dependent effects of sodium cholate and deoxycholate bile salts on breast cancer cells proliferation and survival. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2020, 47, 3521–3539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Baptissart, M.; Vega, A.; Maqdasy, S.; Caira, F.; Baron, S.; Lobaccaro, J.-M.A.; Volle, D.H. Bile acids: From digestion to cancers. Biochimie 2013, 95, 504–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Nagengast, F.; Grubben, M.; Van Munster, I. Role of bile acids in colorectal carcinogenesis. Eur. J. Cancer 1995, 31, 1067–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Fu, J.; Yu, M.; Xu, W.; Yu, S. Research progress of bile acids in cancer. Front. Oncol. 2022, 11, 778258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Cheng, W.; Li, F.; Yang, R. The Roles of Gut Microbiota Metabolites in the Occurrence and Development of Colorectal Cancer: Multiple Insights for Potential Clinical Applications. Gastro Hep Adv. 2024, 3, 855–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Song, X.; An, Y.; Chen, D.; Zhang, W.; Wu, X.; Li, C.; Wang, S.; Dong, W.; Wang, B.; Liu, T.; et al. Microbial metabolite deoxycholic acid promotes vasculogenic mimicry formation in intestinal carcinogenesis. Cancer Sci. 2022, 113, 459–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  199. Nguyen, T.T.; Ung, T.T.; Li, S.; Sah, D.K.; Park, S.Y.; Lian, S.; Jung, Y.D. Lithocholic Acid Induces miR21, Promoting PTEN Inhibition via STAT3 and ERK-1/2 Signaling in Colorectal Cancer Cells. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 10209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Lin, H.; Yu, Y.; Zhu, L.; Lai, N.; Zhang, L.; Guo, Y.; Lin, X.; Yang, D.; Ren, N.; Zhu, Z.; et al. Implications of hydrogen sulfide in colorectal cancer: Mechanistic insights and diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Redox Biol. 2023, 59, 102601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Li, W.; Chen, H.; Tang, J. Interplay between Bile Acids and Intestinal Microbiota: Regulatory Mechanisms and Therapeutic Potential for Infections. Pathogens 2024, 13, 702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Ridlon, J.M.; Harris, S.C.; Bhowmik, S.; Kang, D.J.; Hylemon, P.B. Consequences of bile salt biotransformations by intestinal bacteria. Gut Microbes 2016, 7, 22–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Jia, W.; Xie, G.; Jia, W. Bile acid-microbiota crosstalk in gastrointestinal inflammation and carcinogenesis. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2018, 15, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Peters, J. Tryptophan nutrition and metabolism: An overview. In Kynurenine and Serotonin Pathways. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1991; pp. 345–358. [Google Scholar]
  205. Leathwood, P.D. Tryptophan availability and serotonin synthesis. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 1987, 46, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Sainio, E.-L.; Pulkki, K.; Young, S. L-Tryptophan: Biochemical, nutritional and pharmacological aspects. Amino Acids 1996, 10, 21–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Agus, A.; Planchais, J.; Sokol, H. Gut Microbiota Regulation of Tryptophan Metabolism in Health and Disease. Cell Host Microbe 2018, 23, 716–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  208. Shi, B.; Zhang, X.; Song, Z.; Dai, Z.; Luo, K.; Chen, B.; Zhou, Z.; Cui, Y.; Feng, B.; Zhu, Z.; et al. Targeting gut microbiota–derived kynurenine to predict and protect the remodeling of the pressure-overloaded young heart. Sci. Adv. 2023, 9, eadg7417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  209. Jaglin, M.; Rhimi, M.; Philippe, C.; Pons, N.; Bruneau, A.; Goustard, B.; Daugé, V.; Maguin, E.; Naudon, L.; Rabot, S. Indole, a Signaling Molecule Produced by the Gut Microbiota, Negatively Impacts Emotional Behaviors in Rats. Front. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  210. Seo, Y.D.; Wargo, J.A. From bugs to drugs: Bacterial 3-IAA enhances efficacy of chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer. Cell Rep. Med. 2023, 4, 101039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  211. Ward, F.W. The fate of indolepropionic acid in the animal organism. Biochem. J. 1923, 17, 907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Stone, T.W.; Williams, R.O. Modulation of T cells by tryptophan metabolites in the kynurenine pathway. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2023, 44, 442–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Fiore, A.; Murray, P.J. Tryptophan and indole metabolism in immune regulation. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 2021, 70, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Mándi, Y.; Vécsei, L. The kynurenine system and immunoregulation. J. Neural Transm. (Vienna) 2012, 119, 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  215. Osuch, B.; Misztal, T.; Pałatyńska, K.; Tomaszewska-Zaremba, D. Implications of Kynurenine Pathway Metabolism for the Immune System, Hypothalamic–Pituitary–Adrenal Axis, and Neurotransmission in Alcohol Use Disorder. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 4845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Ye, X.; Li, H.; Anjum, K.; Zhong, X.; Miao, S.; Zheng, G.; Liu, W.; Li, L. Dual Role of Indoles Derived From Intestinal Microbiota on Human Health. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 903526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  217. Liu, Y.; Pei, Z.; Pan, T.; Wang, H.; Chen, W.; Lu, W. Indole metabolites and colorectal cancer: Gut microbial tryptophan metabolism, host gut microbiome biomarkers, and potential intervention mechanisms. Microbiol. Res. 2023, 272, 127392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  218. Cover, C.M.; Hsieh, S.J.; Tran, S.H.; Hallden, G.; Kim, G.S.; Bjeldanes, L.F.; Firestone, G.L. Indole-3-carbinol inhibits the expression of cyclin-dependent kinase-6 and induces a G1 cell cycle arrest of human breast cancer cells independent of estrogen receptor signaling. J. Biol. Chem. 1998, 273, 3838–3847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  219. Gouasmi, R.; Ferraro-Peyret, C.; Nancey, S.; Coste, I.; Renno, T.; Chaveroux, C.; Aznar, N.; Ansieau, S. The Kynurenine Pathway and Cancer: Why Keep It Simple When You Can Make It Complicated. Cancers 2022, 14, 2793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  220. Chuang, H.-Y.; Hofree, M.; Ideker, T. A decade of systems biology. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2010, 26, 721–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Casotti, M.C.; Meira, D.D.; Zetum, A.S.S.; Campanharo, C.V.; da Silva, D.R.C.; Giacinti, G.M.; da Silva, I.M.; Moura, J.A.D.; Barbosa, K.R.M.; Altoé, L.S.C. Integrating frontiers: A holistic, quantum and evolutionary approach to conquering cancer through systems biology and multidisciplinary synergy. Front. Oncol. 2024, 14, 1419599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Dutta, B.; Lahiri, D.; Nag, M.; Sarkar, N.; Ray, R.R.; Bhattacharya, D. Systems Biology Approaches for Cancer Biology. In Systems Biology Approaches: Prevention, Diagnosis, and Understanding Mechanisms of Complex Diseases; Springer: Singapore, 2024; pp. 537–559. [Google Scholar]
  223. Passi, A.; Tibocha-Bonilla, J.D.; Kumar, M.; Tec-Campos, D.; Zengler, K.; Zuniga, C. Genome-Scale Metabolic Modeling Enables In-Depth Understanding of Big Data. Metabolites 2021, 12, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Gu, C.; Kim, G.B.; Kim, W.J.; Kim, H.U.; Lee, S.Y. Current status and applications of genome-scale metabolic models. Genome Biol. 2019, 20, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Tarzi, C.; Zampieri, G.; Sullivan, N.; Angione, C. Emerging methods for genome-scale metabolic modeling of microbial communities. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 2024, 35, 533–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  226. O’Brien, E.J.; Monk, J.M.; Palsson, B.O. Using Genome-scale Models to Predict Biological Capabilities. Cell 2015, 161, 971–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  227. Carter, E.L.; Constantinidou, C.; Alam, M.T. Applications of genome-scale metabolic models to investigate microbial metabolic adaptations in response to genetic or environmental perturbations. Brief. Bioinform. 2023, 25, bbad439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Proffitt, C.; Bidkhori, G.; Lee, S.; Tebani, A.; Mardinoglu, A.; Uhlen, M.; Moyes, D.L.; Shoaie, S. Genome-scale metabolic modelling of the human gut microbiome reveals changes in the glyoxylate and dicarboxylate metabolism in metabolic disorders. iScience 2022, 25, 104513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Diener, C.; Gibbons Sean, M.; Resendis-Antonio, O. MICOM: Metagenome-Scale Modeling To Infer Metabolic Interactions in the Gut Microbiota. mSystems 2020, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  230. Esvap, E.; Ulgen, K.O. Advances in Genome-Scale Metabolic Modeling toward Microbial Community Analysis of the Human Microbiome. ACS Synth. Biol. 2021, 10, 2121–2137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  231. Nilsson, A.; Nielsen, J. Genome scale metabolic modeling of cancer. Metab. Eng. 2017, 43, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Lee, G.; Lee, S.M.; Lee, S.; Jeong, C.W.; Song, H.; Lee, S.Y.; Yun, H.; Koh, Y.; Kim, H.U. Prediction of metabolites associated with somatic mutations in cancers by using genome-scale metabolic models and mutation data. Genome Biol. 2024, 25, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Gilbert, J.A. Our unique microbial identity. Genome Biol. 2015, 16, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Huttenhower, C.; Gevers, D.; Knight, R.; Abubucker, S.; Badger, J.H.; Chinwalla, A.T.; Creasy, H.H.; Earl, A.M.; FitzGerald, M.G.; Fulton, R.S.; et al. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature 2012, 486, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Franzosa, E.A.; Huang, K.; Meadow, J.F.; Gevers, D.; Lemon, K.P.; Bohannan, B.J.; Huttenhower, C. Identifying personal microbiomes using metagenomic codes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, E2930–E2938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Dominguez-Bello, M.G.; Godoy-Vitorino, F.; Knight, R.; Blaser, M.J. Role of the microbiome in human development. Gut 2019, 68, 1108–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  237. Shahab, M.; Shahab, N. Coevolution of the Human Host and Gut Microbiome: Metagenomics of Microbiota. Cureus 2022, 14, e26310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  238. Groussin, M.; Mazel, F.; Alm, E.J. Co-evolution and Co-speciation of Host-Gut Bacteria Systems. Cell Host Microbe 2020, 28, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Stolfi, C.; Maresca, C.; Monteleone, G.; Laudisi, F. Implication of Intestinal Barrier Dysfunction in Gut Dysbiosis and Diseases. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  240. Takiishi, T.; Fenero, C.I.M.; Câmara, N.O.S. Intestinal barrier and gut microbiota: Shaping our immune responses throughout life. Tissue Barriers 2017, 5, e1373208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  241. Akbar, N.; Khan, N.A.; Muhammad, J.S.; Siddiqui, R. The role of gut microbiome in cancer genesis and cancer prevention. Health Sci. Rev. 2022, 2, 100010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Roy, R.; Singh, S.K. The Microbiome Modulates the Immune System to Influence Cancer Therapy. Cancers 2024, 16, 779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Schluter, J.; Peled, J.U.; Taylor, B.P.; Markey, K.A.; Smith, M.; Taur, Y.; Niehus, R.; Staffas, A.; Dai, A.; Fontana, E.; et al. The gut microbiota is associated with immune cell dynamics in humans. Nature 2020, 588, 303–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Luchini, C.; Pea, A.; Scarpa, A. Artificial intelligence in oncology: Current applications and future perspectives. Br. J. Cancer 2022, 126, 4–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Graham, D.B.; Xavier, R.J. Conditioning of the immune system by the microbiome. Trends Immunol. 2023, 44, 499–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  246. Gao, F.; Wu, H.; Wang, L.; Zhao, Y.; Huang, H. Altered intestinal microbiome and epithelial damage aggravate intestinal graft-versus-host disease. Gut Microbes 2023, 15, 2221821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  247. Kumari, R.; Palaniyandi, S.; Strattan, E.; Hildebrandt, G.C. Microbiome: An emerging new frontier in graft-versus-host disease. Inflamm. Res. 2020, 70, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Gyriki, D.; Nikolaidis, C.; Stavropoulou, E.; Bezirtzoglou, I.; Tsigalou, C.; Vradelis, S.; Bezirtzoglou, E. Exploring the Gut Microbiome’s Role in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Insights and Interventions. J. Pers. Med. 2024, 14, 507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  249. La Flamme, A.C.; Milling, S.W.F. Immunological partners: The gut microbiome in homeostasis and disease. Immunology 2020, 161, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Tepekule, B.; Lim, A.I.; Jessica, C.; Metcalf, E. The ontogeny of immune tolerance: A model of the early-life gut microbiome and adaptive immunity. bioRxiv 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Sharma, P.; Jain, T.; Sethi, V.; Iyer, S.; Dudeja, V. Gut Microbiome: The Third Musketeer in the Cancer-Immune System Cross-Talk. J. Pancreatol. 2020, 3, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  252. Kim, J.; Lee, H.K. Potential Role of the Gut Microbiome In Colorectal Cancer Progression. Front. Immunol. 2022, 12, 807648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  253. Fakruddin, M.; Shishir, M.A.; Oyshe, I.I.; Amin, S.M.T.; Hossain, A.; Sarna, I.J.; Jerin, N.; Mitra, D.K. Microbial Architects of Malignancy: Exploring the Gut Microbiome’s Influence in Cancer Initiation and Progression. Cancer Plus 2023, 5, 397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  254. Anderson, S.M.; Sears, C.L. The Role of the Gut Microbiome in Cancer: A Review, With Special Focus on Colorectal Neoplasia and Clostridioides difficile. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2023, 77 (Suppl. 6), S471–S478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Kann, B.H.; Hosny, A.; Aerts, H. Artificial intelligence for clinical oncology. Cancer Cell 2021, 39, 916–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  256. Kurian, M.; Adashek, J.J.; West, H. Cancer Care in the Era of Artificial Intelligence. JAMA Oncol. 2024, 10, 683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  257. McDonnell, K.J. Leveraging the Academic Artificial Intelligence Silecosystem to Advance the Community Oncology Enterprise. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 4830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Kumar, Y.; Koul, A.; Singla, R.; Ijaz, M.F. Artificial intelligence in disease diagnosis: A systematic literature review, synthesizing framework and future research agenda. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2023, 14, 8459–8486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Kulkarni, P.A.; Singh, H. Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Diagnosis: Opportunities, Challenges, and Hype. JAMA 2023, 330, 317–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  260. Peris-Bondia, F.; Latorre, A.; Artacho, A.; Moya, A.; D’Auria, G. The active human gut microbiota differs from the total microbiota. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e22448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  261. Lozupone, C.A.; Stombaugh, J.I.; Gordon, J.I.; Jansson, J.K.; Knight, R. Diversity, stability and resilience of the human gut microbiota. Nature 2012, 489, 220–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  262. D’Elia, D.; Truu, J.; Lahti, L.; Berland, M.; Papoutsoglou, G.; Ceci, M.; Zomer, A.; Lopes, M.B.; Ibrahimi, E.; Gruca, A.; et al. Advancing microbiome research with machine learning: Key findings from the ML4Microbiome COST action. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1257002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  263. Li, P.; Luo, H.; Ji, B.; Nielsen, J. Machine learning for data integration in human gut microbiome. Microb. Cell Factories 2022, 21, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. Abavisani, M.; Khoshrou, A.; Foroushan, S.K.; Ebadpour, N.; Sahebkar, A. Deciphering the gut microbiome: The revolution of artificial intelligence in microbiota analysis and intervention. Curr. Res. Biotechnol. 2024, 7, 100211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Manandhar, I.; Alimadadi, A.; Aryal, S.; Munroe, P.B.; Joe, B.; Cheng, X. Gut microbiome-based supervised machine learning for clinical diagnosis of inflammatory bowel diseases. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 2021, 320, G328–G337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  266. Dudek, N.K.; Chakhvadze, M.; Kobakhidze, S.; Kantidze, O.; Gankin, Y. Supervised machine learning for microbiomics: Bridging the gap between current and best practices. Mach. Learn. Appl. 2024, 18, 100607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  267. Liang, H.; Jo, J.-H.; Zhang, Z.; MacGibeny, M.A.; Han, J.; Proctor, D.M.; Taylor, M.E.; Che, Y.; Juneau, P.; Apolo, A.B. Predicting cancer immunotherapy response from gut microbiomes using machine learning models. Oncotarget 2022, 13, 876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  268. Shi, Y.; Zhang, L.; Peterson, C.B.; Do, K.-A.; Jenq, R.R. Performance determinants of unsupervised clustering methods for microbiome data. Microbiome 2022, 10, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  269. Papoutsoglou, G.; Tarazona, S.; Lopes, M.B.; Klammsteiner, T.; Ibrahimi, E.; Eckenberger, J.; Novielli, P.; Tonda, A.; Simeon, A.; Shigdel, R. Machine learning approaches in microbiome research: Challenges and best practices. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1261889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  270. Marcos-Zambrano, L.J.; Karaduzovic-Hadziabdic, K.; Loncar Turukalo, T.; Przymus, P.; Trajkovik, V.; Aasmets, O.; Berland, M.; Gruca, A.; Hasic, J.; Hron, K.; et al. Applications of Machine Learning in Human Microbiome Studies: A Review on Feature Selection, Biomarker Identification, Disease Prediction and Treatment. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 634511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  271. Liu, W.; Fang, X.; Zhou, Y.; Dou, L.; Dou, T. Machine learning-based investigation of the relationship between gut microbiome and obesity status. Microbes Infect. 2022, 24, 104892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  272. Thompson, J.; Johansen, R.; Dunbar, J.; Munsky, B. Machine learning to predict microbial community functions: An analysis of dissolved organic carbon from litter decomposition. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0215502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. Chen, T.F.; Chen, R.M.; Tsai, J.J.P.; Hu, R.M. Fine Classification of Human Gut Microbiota by Using Hierarchical Clustering Approach. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering (BIBE), Taichung, Taiwan, 31 October–2 November 2016; pp. 109–112. [Google Scholar]
  274. Yang, D.; Xu, W. Clustering on Human Microbiome Sequencing Data: A Distance-Based Unsupervised Learning Model. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  275. Leong, C.; Haszard, J.J.; Heath, A.-L.M.; Tannock, G.W.; Lawley, B.; Cameron, S.L.; Szymlek-Gay, E.A.; Gray, A.R.; Taylor, B.J.; Galland, B.C.; et al. Using compositional principal component analysis to describe children’s gut microbiota in relation to diet and body composition. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2020, 111, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Novielli, P.; Romano, D.; Magarelli, M.; Bitonto, P.D.; Diacono, D.; Chiatante, A.; Lopalco, G.; Sabella, D.; Venerito, V.; Filannino, P.; et al. Explainable artificial intelligence for microbiome data analysis in colorectal cancer biomarker identification. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1348974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  277. Giuffrè, M.; Moretti, R.; Tiribelli, C. Gut Microbes Meet Machine Learning: The Next Step towards Advancing Our Understanding of the Gut Microbiome in Health and Disease. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 5229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  278. Wickramaratne, D.N.; Wijesinghe, C.R.; Weerasinghe, A.R. A Deep Learning Approach to Predict Health Status Using Microbiome Profiling. In Proceedings of the 2022 22nd International Conference on Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions (ICTer), Colombo, Sri Lanka, 30 November–1 December 2022; pp. 075–079. [Google Scholar]
  279. Bai, X.; Huang, Z.; Duraj-Thatte, A.M.; Ebert, M.P.; Zhang, F.; Burgermeister, E.; Liu, X.; Scott, B.M.; Li, G.; Zuo, T. Engineering the gut microbiome. Nat. Rev. Bioeng. 2023, 1, 665–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. Arnold, J.; Glazier, J.; Mimee, M. Genetic engineering of resident bacteria in the gut microbiome. J. Bacteriol. 2023, 205, e00127-23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  281. Jin, W.-B.; Li, T.-T.; Huo, D.; Qu, S.; Li, X.V.; Arifuzzaman, M.; Lima, S.F.; Shi, H.-Q.; Wang, A.; Putzel, G.G.; et al. Genetic manipulation of gut microbes enables single-gene interrogation in a complex microbiome. Cell 2022, 185, 547–562.e522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  282. Song, Q.; Zheng, C.; Jia, J.; Zhao, H.; Feng, Q.; Zhang, H.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Y. A Probiotic Spore-Based Oral Autonomous Nanoparticles Generator for Cancer Therapy. Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, e1903793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  283. Molla, K.A.; Yang, Y. CRISPR/Cas-mediated base editing: Technical considerations and practical applications. Trends Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 1121–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  284. Hess, G.T.; Tycko, J.; Yao, D.; Bassik, M.C. Methods and applications of CRISPR-mediated base editing in eukaryotic genomes. Mol. Cell 2017, 68, 26–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  285. Porto, E.M.; Komor, A.C.; Slaymaker, I.M.; Yeo, G.W. Base editing: Advances and therapeutic opportunities. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2020, 19, 839–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  286. Rees, H.A.; Liu, D.R. Base editing: Precision chemistry on the genome and transcriptome of living cells. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2018, 19, 770–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Saber Sichani, A.; Ranjbar, M.; Baneshi, M.; Torabi Zadeh, F.; Fallahi, J. A review on advanced CRISPR-based genome-editing tools: Base editing and prime editing. Mol. Biotechnol. 2023, 65, 849–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  288. Brodel, A.K.; Charpenay, L.H.; Galtier, M.; Fuche, F.J.; Terrasse, R.; Poquet, C.; Havranek, J.; Pignotti, S.; Krawczyk, A.; Arraou, M.; et al. In situ targeted base editing of bacteria in the mouse gut. Nature 2024, 632, 877–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  289. Ronda, C.; Chen, S.P.; Cabral, V.; Yaung, S.J.; Wang, H.H. Metagenomic engineering of the mammalian gut microbiome in situ. Nat. Methods 2019, 16, 167–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  290. Zheng, L.; Shen, J.; Chen, R.; Hu, Y.; Zhao, W.; Leung, E.L.-H.; Dai, L. Genome engineering of the human gut microbiome. J. Genet. Genom. 2024, 51, 479–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  291. Benner, S.A.; Sismour, A.M. Synthetic biology. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2005, 6, 533–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  292. Hanczyc, M.M. Engineering Life: A Review of Synthetic Biology. Artif. Life 2020, 26, 260–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  293. Garner, K.L. Principles of synthetic biology. Essays Biochem. 2021, 65, 791–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  294. Tanna, T.; Ramachanderan, R.; Platt, R.J. Engineered bacteria to report gut function: Technologies and implementation. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2021, 59, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  295. Woo, S.-G.; Moon, S.-J.; Kim, S.K.; Kim, T.H.; Lim, H.S.; Yeon, G.-H.; Sung, B.H.; Lee, C.-H.; Lee, S.-G.; Hwang, J.H.; et al. A designed whole-cell biosensor for live diagnosis of gut inflammation through nitrate sensing. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2020, 168, 112523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  296. Ayati, M.H.; Araj-Khodaei, M.; Haghgouei, T.; Ahmadalipour, A.; Mobed, A.; Sanaie, S. Biosensors: The nanomaterial-based method in detection of human gut microbiota. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2023, 307, 127854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  297. Dunham, K.E.; Venton, B.J. Electrochemical and biosensor techniques to monitor neurotransmitter changes with depression. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2024, 416, 2301–2318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  298. Zhao, J.; Sun, H.; Wang, G.; Wang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Li, Q.; Bi, S.; Qi, Q.; Wang, Q. Engineering Chimeric Chemoreceptors and Two-Component Systems for Orthogonal and Leakless Biosensing of Extracellular γ-Aminobutyric Acid. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2024, 72, 14216–14228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  299. Baumann, L.; Rajkumar, A.S.; Morrissey, J.P.; Boles, E.; Oreb, M. A Yeast-Based Biosensor for Screening of Short- and Medium-Chain Fatty Acid Production. ACS Synth. Biol. 2018, 7, 2640–2646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  300. Wasiewska, L.A.; Uhlig, F.; Barry, F.; Teixeira, S.; Clarke, G.; Schellekens, H. Developments in sensors for rapid detection of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs): Research and limitation in their applications in gut health and the microbiota-gut-brain axis. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2024, 184, 118118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  301. van der Lelie, D.; Oka, A.; Taghavi, S.; Umeno, J.; Fan, T.J.; Merrell, K.E.; Watson, S.D.; Ouellette, L.; Liu, B.; Awoniyi, M.; et al. Rationally designed bacterial consortia to treat chronic immune-mediated colitis and restore intestinal homeostasis. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 3105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  302. Zhou, T.; Wu, J.; Tang, H.; Liu, D.; Jeon, B.H.; Jin, W.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Khan, A.; Han, H.; et al. Enhancing tumor-specific recognition of programmable synthetic bacterial consortium for precision therapy of colorectal cancer. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 2024, 10, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  303. van Leeuwen, P.T.; Brul, S.; Zhang, J.; Wortel, M.T. Synthetic microbial communities (SynComs) of the human gut: Design, assembly, and applications. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2023, 47, fuad012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  304. Perez, M.; Ntemiri, A.; Tan, H.; Harris, H.M.B.; Roager, H.M.; Ribiere, C.; O’Toole, P.W. A synthetic consortium of 100 gut commensals modulates the composition and function in a colon model of the microbiome of elderly subjects. Gut Microbes 2021, 13, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  305. Clark, R.L.; Connors, B.M.; Stevenson, D.M.; Hromada, S.E.; Hamilton, J.J.; Amador-Noguez, D.; Venturelli, O.S. Design of synthetic human gut microbiome assembly and butyrate production. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 3254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  306. Nazir, A.; Hussain, F.H.N.; Raza, A. Advancing microbiota therapeutics: The role of synthetic biology in engineering microbial communities for precision medicine. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2024, 12, 1511149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  307. Gonzalez-Garcia, R.A.; McCubbin, T.; Navone, L.; Stowers, C.; Nielsen, L.K.; Marcellin, E. Microbial Propionic Acid Production. Fermentation 2017, 3, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  308. McCarty, N.S.; Ledesma-Amaro, R. Synthetic Biology Tools to Engineer Microbial Communities for Biotechnology. Trends Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 181–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  309. Wu, S.; Zhou, Y.; Dai, L.; Yang, A.; Qiao, J. Assembly of functional microbial ecosystems: From molecular circuits to communities. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2024, 48, fuae026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  310. El Hage, R.; Hernandez-Sanabria, E.; Calatayud Arroyo, M.; Props, R.; Van de Wiele, T. Propionate-producing consortium restores antibiotic-induced dysbiosis in a dynamic in vitro model of the human intestinal microbial ecosystem. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  311. Raghu, A.K.; Palanikumar, I.; Raman, K. Designing function-specific minimal microbiomes from large microbial communities. npj Syst. Biol. Appl. 2024, 10, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  312. Lee, H.L.; Shen, H.; Hwang, I.Y.; Ling, H.; Yew, W.S.; Lee, Y.S.; Chang, M.W. Targeted Approaches for In Situ Gut Microbiome Manipulation. Genes 2018, 9, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  313. Nogal, A.; Louca, P.; Zhang, X.; Wells, P.M.; Steves, C.J.; Spector, T.D.; Falchi, M.; Valdes, A.M.; Menni, C. Circulating levels of the short-chain fatty acid acetate mediate the effect of the gut microbiome on visceral fat. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 711359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  314. Hosmer, J.; McEwan, A.G.; Kappler, U. Bacterial acetate metabolism and its influence on human epithelia. Emerg. Top. Life Sci. 2024, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  315. Li, H.Y.; Zhou, D.D.; Gan, R.Y.; Huang, S.Y.; Zhao, C.N.; Shang, A.; Xu, X.Y.; Li, H.B. Effects and Mechanisms of Probiotics, Prebiotics, Synbiotics, and Postbiotics on Metabolic Diseases Targeting Gut Microbiota: A Narrative Review. Nutrients 2021, 13, 3211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  316. Gibson, G.R.; Hutkins, R.; Sanders, M.E.; Prescott, S.L.; Reimer, R.A.; Salminen, S.J.; Scott, K.; Stanton, C.; Swanson, K.S.; Cani, P.D.; et al. Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017, 14, 491–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  317. Sanders, M.E.; Merenstein, D.J.; Reid, G.; Gibson, G.R.; Rastall, R.A. Probiotics and prebiotics in intestinal health and disease: From biology to the clinic. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019, 16, 605–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  318. Holscher, H.D. Dietary fiber and prebiotics and the gastrointestinal microbiota. Gut Microbes 2017, 8, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  319. Nawaz, A.; Bakhsh Javaid, A.; Irshad, S.; Hoseinifar, S.H.; Xiong, H. The functionality of prebiotics as immunostimulant: Evidences from trials on terrestrial and aquatic animals. Fish. Shellfish. Immunol. 2018, 76, 272–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  320. Macfarlane, G.T.; Macfarlane, S. Fermentation in the human large intestine: Its physiologic consequences and the potential contribution of prebiotics. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2011, 45, S120–S127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  321. Birkeland, E.; Gharagozlian, S.; Birkeland, K.I.; Valeur, J.; Måge, I.; Rud, I.; Aas, A.M. Prebiotic effect of inulin-type fructans on faecal microbiota and short-chain fatty acids in type 2 diabetes: A randomised controlled trial. Eur. J. Nutr. 2020, 59, 3325–3338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  322. Riva, A.; Rasoulimehrabani, H.; Cruz-Rubio, J.M.; Schnorr, S.L.; von Baeckmann, C.; Inan, D.; Nikolov, G.; Herbold, C.W.; Hausmann, B.; Pjevac, P.; et al. Identification of inulin-responsive bacteria in the gut microbiota via multi-modal activity-based sorting. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 8210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  323. Le Bastard, Q.; Chapelet, G.; Javaudin, F.; Lepelletier, D.; Batard, E.; Montassier, E. The effects of inulin on gut microbial composition: A systematic review of evidence from human studies. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2020, 39, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  324. Becerril-Alarcón, Y.; Campos-Gómez, S.; Valdez-Andrade, J.J.; Campos-Gómez, K.A.; Reyes-Barretero, D.Y.; Benítez-Arciniega, A.D.; Valdés-Ramos, R.; Soto-Piña, A.E. Inulin Supplementation Reduces Systolic Blood Pressure in Women with Breast Cancer Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Cardiovasc. Ther. 2019, 2019, 5707150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  325. Rafter, J.; Bennett, M.; Caderni, G.; Clune, Y.; Hughes, R.; Karlsson, P.C.; Klinder, A.; O’Riordan, M.; O’Sullivan, G.C.; Pool-Zobel, B.; et al. Dietary synbiotics reduce cancer risk factors in polypectomized and colon cancer patients. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2007, 85, 488–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  326. Garcia-Peris, P.; Velasco, C.; Hernandez, M.; Lozano, M.A.; Paron, L.; de la Cuerda, C.; Breton, I.; Camblor, M.; Guarner, F. Effect of inulin and fructo-oligosaccharide on the prevention of acute radiation enteritis in patients with gynecological cancer and impact on quality-of-life: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2016, 70, 170–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  327. Hill, C.; Guarner, F.; Reid, G.; Gibson, G.R.; Merenstein, D.J.; Pot, B.; Morelli, L.; Canani, R.B.; Flint, H.J.; Salminen, S.; et al. Expert consensus document. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014, 11, 506–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  328. Suez, J.; Zmora, N.; Segal, E.; Elinav, E. The pros, cons, and many unknowns of probiotics. Nat. Med. 2019, 25, 716–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  329. Sanders, M.E.; Guarner, F.; Guerrant, R.; Holt, P.R.; Quigley, E.M.; Sartor, R.B.; Sherman, P.M.; Mayer, E.A. An update on the use and investigation of probiotics in health and disease. Gut 2013, 62, 787–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  330. Kiepś, J.; Dembczyński, R. Current Trends in the Production of Probiotic Formulations. Foods 2022, 11, 2330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  331. Fenster, K.; Freeburg, B.; Hollard, C.; Wong, C.; Rønhave Laursen, R.; Ouwehand, A.C. The Production and Delivery of Probiotics: A Review of a Practical Approach. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  332. Wilkins, T.; Sequoia, J. Probiotics for Gastrointestinal Conditions: A Summary of the Evidence. Am. Fam. Physician 2017, 96, 170–178. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  333. Zhou, Z.; Chen, X.; Sheng, H.; Shen, X.; Sun, X.; Yan, Y.; Wang, J.; Yuan, Q. Engineering probiotics as living diagnostics and therapeutics for improving human health. Microb. Cell Fact. 2020, 19, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  334. Bober, J.R.; Beisel, C.L.; Nair, N.U. Synthetic Biology Approaches to Engineer Probiotics and Members of the Human Microbiota for Biomedical Applications. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2018, 20, 277–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  335. Mays, Z.J.; Nair, N.U. Synthetic biology in probiotic lactic acid bacteria: At the frontier of living therapeutics. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2018, 53, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  336. Romero-Luna, H.E.; Hernández-Mendoza, A.; González-Córdova, A.F.; Peredo-Lovillo, A. Bioactive peptides produced by engineered probiotics and other food-grade bacteria: A review. Food Chem. X 2022, 13, 100196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  337. Wang, G.; Chen, Y.; Xia, Y.; Song, X.; Ai, L. Characteristics of Probiotic Preparations and Their Applications. Foods 2022, 11, 2472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  338. Ciorba, M.A. A gastroenterologist’s guide to probiotics. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2012, 10, 960–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  339. Su, G.L.; Ko, C.W.; Bercik, P.; Falck-Ytter, Y.; Sultan, S.; Weizman, A.V.; Morgan, R.L. AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Role of Probiotics in the Management of Gastrointestinal Disorders. Gastroenterology 2020, 159, 697–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  340. Śliżewska, K.; Markowiak-Kopeć, P.; Śliżewska, W. The Role of Probiotics in Cancer Prevention. Cancers 2020, 13, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  341. Naeem, H.; Hassan, H.U.; Shahbaz, M.; Imran, M.; Memon, A.G.; Hasnain, A.; Murtaza, S.; Alsagaby, S.A.; Al Abdulmonem, W.; Hussain, M.; et al. Role of Probiotics against Human Cancers, Inflammatory Diseases, and Other Complex Malignancies. J. Food Biochem. 2024, 2024, 6632209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  342. Jiang, S.; Ma, W.; Ma, C.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, J. An emerging strategy: Probiotics enhance the effectiveness of tumor immunotherapy via mediating the gut microbiome. Gut Microbes 2024, 16, 2341717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  343. Marinelli, L.; Tenore, G.C.; Novellino, E. Probiotic species in the modulation of the anticancer immune response. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2017, 46, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  344. Redman, M.G.; Ward, E.J.; Phillips, R.S. The efficacy and safety of probiotics in people with cancer: A systematic review. Ann. Oncol. 2014, 25, 1919–1929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  345. Lu, Y.; Luo, X.; Yang, D.; Li, Y.; Gong, T.; Li, B.; Cheng, J.; Chen, R.; Guo, X.; Yuan, W. Effects of probiotic supplementation on related side effects after chemoradiotherapy in cancer patients. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 1032145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  346. Zaharuddin, L.; Mokhtar, N.M.; Muhammad Nawawi, K.N.; Raja Ali, R.A. A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of probiotics in post-surgical colorectal cancer. BMC Gastroenterol. 2019, 19, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  347. Xia, C.; Jiang, C.; Li, W.; Wei, J.; Hong, H.; Li, J.; Feng, L.; Wei, H.; Xin, H.; Chen, T. A Phase II Randomized Clinical Trial and Mechanistic Studies Using Improved Probiotics to Prevent Oral Mucositis Induced by Concurrent Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 618150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  348. Dizman, N.; Meza, L.; Bergerot, P.; Alcantara, M.; Dorff, T.; Lyou, Y.; Frankel, P.; Cui, Y.; Mira, V.; Llamas, M.; et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with or without live bacterial supplementation in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A randomized phase 1 trial. Nat. Med. 2022, 28, 704–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  349. Lythgoe, M.P.; Ghani, R.; Mullish, B.H.; Marchesi, J.R.; Krell, J. The potential of fecal microbiota transplantation in oncology. Trends Microbiol. 2022, 30, 10–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  350. Xu, H.; Cao, C.; Ren, Y.; Weng, S.; Liu, L.; Guo, C.; Wang, L.; Han, X.; Ren, J.; Liu, Z. Antitumor effects of fecal microbiota transplantation: Implications for microbiome modulation in cancer treatment. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 949490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  351. Drew, L. Faecal transplants can treat some cancers—But probably won’t ever be widely used. Nature 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  352. Yadegar, A.; Bar-Yoseph, H.; Monaghan, T.M.; Pakpour, S.; Severino, A.; Kuijper, E.J.; Smits, W.K.; Terveer, E.M.; Neupane, S.; Nabavi-Rad, A.; et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation: Current challenges and future landscapes. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2024, 37, e0006022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  353. Vindigni, S.M.; Surawicz, C.M. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation. Gastroenterol. Clin. N. Am. 2017, 46, 171–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  354. Du, C.; Luo, Y.; Walsh, S.; Grinspan, A. Oral Fecal Microbiota Transplant Capsules Are Safe and Effective for Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2021, 55, 300–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  355. Kao, D.; Roach, B.; Silva, M.; Beck, P.; Rioux, K.; Kaplan, G.G.; Chang, H.J.; Coward, S.; Goodman, K.J.; Xu, H.; et al. Effect of Oral Capsule- vs Colonoscopy-Delivered Fecal Microbiota Transplantation on Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Jama 2017, 318, 1985–1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  356. Cho, J.M.; Pestana, L.; Pardi, R.; Pardi, D.S.; Khanna, S. Fecal microbiota transplant via colonoscopy may be preferred due to intraprocedure findings. Intest. Res. 2019, 17, 434–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  357. Allegretti, J.R.; Korzenik, J.R.; Hamilton, M.J. Fecal microbiota transplantation via colonoscopy for recurrent C. difficile Infection. J. Vis. Exp. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  358. Skjevling, L.K.; Hanssen, H.M.; Valle, P.C.; Goll, R.; Juul, F.E.; Arlov, Ø.; Johnsen, P.H. Colonic distribution of FMT by different enema procedures compared to colonoscopy—Proof of concept study using contrast fluid. BMC Gastroenterol. 2023, 23, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  359. Wang, J.-W.; Kuo, C.-H.; Kuo, F.-C.; Wang, Y.-K.; Hsu, W.-H.; Yu, F.-J.; Hu, H.-M.; Hsu, P.-I.; Wang, J.-Y.; Wu, D.-C. Fecal microbiota transplantation: Review and update. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2019, 118, S23–S31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  360. Nicco, C.; Paule, A.; Konturek, P.; Edeas, M. From Donor to Patient: Collection, Preparation and Cryopreservation of Fecal Samples for Fecal Microbiota Transplantation. Diseases 2020, 8, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  361. Chen, J.; Zaman, A.; Ramakrishna, B.; Olesen, S.W. Stool Banking for Fecal Microbiota Transplantation: Methods and Operations at a Large Stool Bank. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 622949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  362. Yu, H.; Li, X.X.; Han, X.; Chen, B.X.; Zhang, X.H.; Gao, S.; Xu, D.Q.; Wang, Y.; Gao, Z.K.; Yu, L.; et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation inhibits colorectal cancer progression: Reversing intestinal microbial dysbiosis to enhance anti-cancer immune responses. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1126808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  363. Khoruts, A. Can FMT Cause or Prevent CRC? Maybe, But There Is More to Consider. Gastroenterology 2021, 161, 1103–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  364. Chang, C.-W.; Lee, H.-C.; Li, L.-H.; Chiang Chiau, J.-S.; Wang, T.-E.; Chuang, W.-H.; Chen, M.-J.; Wang, H.-Y.; Shih, S.-C.; Liu, C.-Y.; et al. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Prevents Intestinal Injury, Upregulation of Toll-Like Receptors, and 5-Fluorouracil/Oxaliplatin-Induced Toxicity in Colorectal Cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  365. Zhang, J.; Wu, K.; Shi, C.; Li, G. Cancer Immunotherapy: Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Brings Light. Curr. Treat. Options Oncol. 2022, 23, 1777–1792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  366. Vongsavath, T.; Rahmani, R.; Tun, K.M.; Manne, V. The Use of Fecal Microbiota Transplant in Overcoming and Modulating Resistance to Anti-PD-1 Therapy in Patients with Skin Cancer. Cancers 2024, 16, 499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  367. Chen, D.; Wu, J.; Jin, D.; Wang, B.; Cao, H. Fecal microbiota transplantation in cancer management: Current status and perspectives. Int. J. Cancer 2019, 145, 2021–2031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  368. Le Bastard, Q.; Ward, T.; Sidiropoulos, D.; Hillmann, B.M.; Chun, C.L.; Sadowsky, M.J.; Knights, D.; Montassier, E. Fecal microbiota transplantation reverses antibiotic and chemotherapy-induced gut dysbiosis in mice. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 6219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  369. Baruch, E.N.; Youngster, I.; Ben-Betzalel, G.; Ortenberg, R.; Lahat, A.; Katz, L.; Adler, K.; Dick-Necula, D.; Raskin, S.; Bloch, N.; et al. Fecal microbiota transplant promotes response in immunotherapy-refractory melanoma patients. Science 2021, 371, 602–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  370. Wu, Y.; Li, Y.; Zheng, Q.; Li, L. The Efficacy of Probiotics, Prebiotics, Synbiotics, and Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Nutrients 2024, 16, 2114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  371. Kaźmierczak-Siedlecka, K.; Daca, A.; Fic, M.; van de Wetering, T.; Folwarski, M.; Makarewicz, W. Therapeutic methods of gut microbiota modification in colorectal cancer management—Fecal microbiota transplantation, prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics. Gut Microbes 2020, 11, 1518–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  372. Ciernikova, S.; Sevcikova, A.; Drgona, L.; Mego, M. Modulating the gut microbiota by probiotics, prebiotics, postbiotics, and fecal microbiota transplantation: An emerging trend in cancer patient care. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)-Rev. Cancer 2023, 1878, 188990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  373. Oprita, R.; Bratu, M.; Oprita, B.; Diaconescu, B. Fecal transplantation—The new, inexpensive, safe, and rapidly effective approach in the treatment of gastrointestinal tract diseases. J. Med. Life 2016, 9, 160–162. [Google Scholar]
  374. Kelly, C.R.; Yen, E.F.; Grinspan, A.M.; Kahn, S.A.; Atreja, A.; Lewis, J.D.; Moore, T.A.; Rubin, D.T.; Kim, A.M.; Serra, S.; et al. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Is Highly Effective in Real-World Practice: Initial Results From the FMT National Registry. Gastroenterology 2021, 160, 183–192.e183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  375. Khanna, S.; Assi, M.; Lee, C.; Yoho, D.; Louie, T.; Knapple, W.; Aguilar, H.; Garcia-Diaz, J.; Wang, G.P.; Berry, S.M.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of RBX2660 in PUNCH CD3, a Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial with a Bayesian Primary Analysis for the Prevention of Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection. Drugs 2022, 82, 1527–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  376. Dubberke, E.R.; Lee, C.H.; Orenstein, R.; Khanna, S.; Hecht, G.; Gerding, D.N. Results From a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial of a RBX2660—A Microbiota-Based Drug for the Prevention of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2018, 67, 1198–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  377. Mullard, A. FDA approves second microbiome-based C. difficile therapy. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2023, 23, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  378. Feuerstadt, P.; Louie, T.J.; Lashner, B.; Wang, E.E.; Diao, L.; Bryant, J.A.; Sims, M.; Kraft, C.S.; Cohen, S.H.; Berenson, C.S. SER-109, an oral microbiome therapy for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022, 386, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  379. Ramai, D.; Zakhia, K.; Ofosu, A.; Ofori, E.; Reddy, M. Fecal microbiota transplantation: Donor relation, fresh or frozen, delivery methods, cost-effectiveness. Ann. Gastroenterol. 2019, 32, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  380. Aung, Y.Y.M.; Wong, D.C.S.; Ting, D.S.W. The promise of artificial intelligence: A review of the opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence in healthcare. Br. Med. Bull. 2021, 139, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  381. Yu, K.H.; Beam, A.L.; Kohane, I.S. Artificial intelligence in healthcare. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2018, 2, 719–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  382. Kurant, D.E. Opportunities and Challenges with Artificial Intelligence in Genomics. Clin. Lab. Med. 2023, 43, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  383. Cantarel, B.L.; Lombard, V.; Henrissat, B. Complex carbohydrate utilization by the healthy human microbiome. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e28742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  384. Halfvarson, J.; Brislawn, C.J.; Lamendella, R.; Vázquez-Baeza, Y.; Walters, W.A.; Bramer, L.M.; D’Amato, M.; Bonfiglio, F.; McDonald, D.; Gonzalez, A.; et al. Dynamics of the human gut microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease. Nat. Microbiol. 2017, 2, 17004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  385. Liechty, Z.S.; Agans, R.T.; Barbato, R.A.; Colston, S.M.; Christian, M.R.; Hammamieh, R.; Kardish, M.R.; Karl, J.P.; Leary, D.H.; Mauzy, C.A.; et al. Meeting report of the seventh annual Tri-Service Microbiome Consortium Symposium. BMC Proc. 2024, 18, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  386. Rabesandratana, T. Microbiome conservancy stores global fecal samples. Science 2018, 362, 510–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  387. Carthey, A.J.; Blumstein, D.T.; Gallagher, R.V.; Tetu, S.G.; Gillings, M.R. Conserving the holobiont. Funct. Ecol. 2020, 34, 764–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  388. Zimmer, A. Collect, preserve, cultivate intestinal microbiotes. A rescue biology. Ecol. Polit. 2019, 58, 135–150. [Google Scholar]
  389. Jain, N.; Umar, T.P.; Fahner, A.-F.; Gibietis, V. Advancing therapeutics for recurrent clostridioides difficile infections: An overview of vowst’s FDA approval and implications. Gut Microbes 2023, 15, 2232137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  390. Groussin, M.; Poyet, M.; Sistiaga, A.; Kearney, S.M.; Moniz, K.; Noel, M.; Hooker, J.; Gibbons, S.M.; Segurel, L.; Froment, A.; et al. Elevated rates of horizontal gene transfer in the industrialized human microbiome. Cell 2021, 184, 2053–2067.e2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  391. Schaan, A.P.; Vidal, A.; Zhang, A.-N.; Poyet, M.; Alm, E.J.; Groussin, M.; Ribeiro-dos-Santos, Â. Temporal dynamics of gut microbiomes in non-industrialized urban Amazonia. mSystems 2024, 9, e00707-23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  392. Yuan, Y.; DeMott, M.S.; Byrne, S.R.; Flores, K.; Poyet, M.; Groussin, M.; Microbiome Conservancy, G.; Berdy, B.; Comstock, L.; Alm, E.J.; et al. Phosphorothioate DNA modification by BREX Type 4 systems in the human gut microbiome. bioRxiv 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  393. Lokmer, A.; Aflalo, S.; Amougou, N.; Lafosse, S.; Froment, A.; Tabe, F.E.; Poyet, M.; Groussin, M.; Said-Mohamed, R.; Ségurel, L. Response of the human gut and saliva microbiome to urbanization in Cameroon. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 2856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  394. Melas, M.; Subbiah, S.; Saadat, S.; Rajurkar, S.; McDonnell, K.J. The Community Oncology and Academic Medical Center Alliance in the Age of Precision Medicine: Cancer Genetics and Genomics Considerations. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  395. Bosserman, L.D.; Cianfrocca, M.; Yuh, B.; Yeon, C.; Chen, H.; Sentovich, S.; Polverini, A.; Zachariah, F.; Deaville, D.; Lee, A.B.; et al. Integrating Academic and Community Cancer Care and Research through Multidisciplinary Oncology Pathways for Value-Based Care: A Review and the City of Hope Experience. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  396. Karimi, M.; Wang, C.; Bahadini, B.; Hajjar, G.; Fakih, M. Integrating Academic and Community Practices in the Management of Colorectal Cancer: The City of Hope Model. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  397. Presant, C.A.; Ashing, K.; Raz, D.; Yeung, S.; Gascon, B.; Stewart, A.; Macalintal, J.; Sandoval, A.; Ehrunmwunsee, L.; Phillips, T.; et al. Overcoming Barriers to Tobacco Cessation and Lung Cancer Screening among Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups and Underserved Patients in Academic Centers and Community Network Sites: The City of Hope Experience. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  398. Villalona-Calero, M.A.; Malhotra, J.; Chung, V.; Xing, Y.; Gray, S.W.; Hampel, H.; Gruber, S.; McDonnell, K. Integrating Early-Stage Drug Development with Clinical Networks; Challenges and Opportunities: The City of Hope Developing Experience. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 4061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  399. Caporaso, J.G.; Kuczynski, J.; Stombaugh, J.; Bittinger, K.; Bushman, F.D.; Costello, E.K.; Fierer, N.; Pena, A.G.; Goodrich, J.K.; Gordon, J.I.; et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods 2010, 7, 335–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  400. Estaki, M.; Jiang, L.; Bokulich, N.A.; McDonald, D.; González, A.; Kosciolek, T.; Martino, C.; Zhu, Q.; Birmingham, A.; Vázquez-Baeza, Y. QIIME 2 enables comprehensive end-to-end analysis of diverse microbiome data and comparative studies with publicly available data. Curr. Protoc. Bioinform. 2020, 70, e100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  401. Bolyen, E.; Rideout, J.R.; Dillon, M.R.; Bokulich, N.A.; Abnet, C.C.; Al-Ghalith, G.A.; Alexander, H.; Alm, E.J.; Arumugam, M.; Asnicar, F.; et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 852–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  402. Wong, C.W.; Yost, S.E.; Lee, J.S.; Gillece, J.D.; Folkerts, M.; Reining, L.; Highlander, S.K.; Eftekhari, Z.; Mortimer, J.; Yuan, Y. Analysis of Gut Microbiome Using Explainable Machine Learning Predicts Risk of Diarrhea Associated With Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Neratinib: A Pilot Study. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 604584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  403. Murad, J.P.; Christian, L.; Yamaguchi, Y.; Lopez, L.; Ouyang, C.; Sato, H.; Jarman, B.; Stromberg, S.; Forman, S.J.; Van Dien, S.; et al. Abstract 6676: Microbiome modification impacts PSCA directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy for prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2024, 84, 6676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  404. Gong, J.; Dizman, N.; Poroyko, V.; Won, H.; Bergerot, C.D.; Bergerot, P.G.; Maia, M.C.; Hsu, J.; Frankel, P.H.; Jones, J.; et al. Gut microbiome composition and response to sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36, 657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  405. Meza, L.A.; Choi, Y.; Govindarajan, A.; Dizman, N.; Zengin, Z.B.; Hsu, J.; Salgia, N.; Salgia, S.; Malhotra, J.; Chawla, N.S.; et al. Association of intra-tumoral microbiome and response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). J. Clin. Oncol. 2022, 40, 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  406. Meza, L.A.; Dizman, N.; Bergerot, P.G.; Dorff, T.B.; Lyou, Y.; Frankel, P.H.; Mira, V.; Llamas, M.; Hsu, J.; Zengin, Z.B.; et al. First results of a randomized phase IB study comparing nivolumab/ipilimumab with or without CBM-588 in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 4513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  407. Wong, C.W.; Yost, S.E.; Lee, J.S.; Highlander, S.K.; Yuan, Y. Abstract 336: Gut microbiome predicts response to CDK4/6 inhibitor and immune check point inhibitor combination in patients with hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2021, 81, 336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  408. Yi, Y.; Shen, L.; Shi, W.; Xia, F.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Y.; Sun, X.; Zhang, Z.; et al. Gut Microbiome Components Predict Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Prospective, Longitudinal Study. Clin. Cancer Res. 2021, 27, 1329–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  409. Moshayedi, N.; Yang, J.; Lagishetty, V.; Jacobs, J.; Placencio-Hickok, V.; Osipov, A.; Hendifar, A.E.; Gong, J. Fecal microbiome composition in pancreatic cancer cachexia and response to nutrition support. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 4129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  410. Zengin, Z.B.; Malhotra, J.; Salgia, S.K.; Dizman, N.; Yost, S.; Chawla, N.; Govindarajan, A.; Hsu, J.; Salgia, N.; Bergerot, P.G.; et al. 1759MO Associations between sarcopenia and gut microbiota in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and breast cancer (BC). Ann. Oncol. 2021, 32, S1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  411. Paredes, J.; Dai, A.; Ramos, R.J.F.; Adintori, P.; Fei, T.; Nguyen, C.; Elias, H.; Victor, K.; Ghale, R.; Pohl, C.; et al. Abstract 2794: Consumption of dietary fiber correlates with a significant increase in a-diversity in the intestinal Microbiome of allo-HCT recipients and with lower GVHD-lethality in pre-clinical models. Cancer Res. 2024, 84, 2794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  412. Huang, N.; Hwang, A.; Lagishetty, V.; Epeldegui, M.; Yu, Y.; Buchanan, L.; Yu, G.; Nathwani, B.N.; Millstein, J.; Mack, T.M.; et al. Differences in Fecal Microbiota in Long-Term Adolscent/Young Adult Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors and Their Unaffected Twins. Blood 2017, 130, 4084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  413. Cozen, W.; Hamilton, A.; Salam, M.; Deapen, D.; Nathwani, B.; Weiss, L.; Mack, T. Abstract #2146: Environmental exposures associated with increased Th2 cytokines may increase risk of young adult Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Cancer Res. 2009, 69, 2146. [Google Scholar]
  414. NIH Report. Available online: https://report.nih.gov (accessed on 20 July 2024).
Figure 1. Numerous factors determine states of eubiosis, dysbiosis and oncobiosis. Many different variables determine whether the microbiome promotes health (eubiosis) or predisposes to disease (dysbiosis and oncobiosis). Both environmental and genetic factors contribute to the final state of microbiome health.
Figure 1. Numerous factors determine states of eubiosis, dysbiosis and oncobiosis. Many different variables determine whether the microbiome promotes health (eubiosis) or predisposes to disease (dysbiosis and oncobiosis). Both environmental and genetic factors contribute to the final state of microbiome health.
Jcm 14 02040 g001
Figure 2. Multiple Tools are Available to Microbiome Investigators and Clinicians. Researchers and physicians have several methods and protocols available to them to advance microbiome discovery and clinical translation.
Figure 2. Multiple Tools are Available to Microbiome Investigators and Clinicians. Researchers and physicians have several methods and protocols available to them to advance microbiome discovery and clinical translation.
Jcm 14 02040 g002
Figure 3. COH operates a national cancer treatment network. (A) COH provides care to patients in southern California through a network of more than thirty community oncology sites and an academic oncology hub in Duarte, California. (B) COH has a national presence with operations in Phoenix, Arizona; Atlanta, Georgia; and Chicago, Illinois, in addition to its community and academic practices in southern California.
Figure 3. COH operates a national cancer treatment network. (A) COH provides care to patients in southern California through a network of more than thirty community oncology sites and an academic oncology hub in Duarte, California. (B) COH has a national presence with operations in Phoenix, Arizona; Atlanta, Georgia; and Chicago, Illinois, in addition to its community and academic practices in southern California.
Jcm 14 02040 g003
Figure 4. Academic and community oncology practices create a virtuous cycle of increased clinical research and improved patient care. The integration of academic and community oncology care at COH results in reciprocally beneficial research and optimized patient treatments.
Figure 4. Academic and community oncology practices create a virtuous cycle of increased clinical research and improved patient care. The integration of academic and community oncology care at COH results in reciprocally beneficial research and optimized patient treatments.
Jcm 14 02040 g004
Figure 5. City of Hope has numerous resources available to facilitate microbiome research. To its network enterprise COH makes available a variety of experimental and computational resources to accelerate microbiome research.
Figure 5. City of Hope has numerous resources available to facilitate microbiome research. To its network enterprise COH makes available a variety of experimental and computational resources to accelerate microbiome research.
Jcm 14 02040 g005
Table 1. Microbiome clinical trials at City of Hope.
Table 1. Microbiome clinical trials at City of Hope.
Clinical TrialNCT IdentifierStatus
Study to Detect Changes in Urinary and Gut Microbiome During Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Radiation Therapy in Patients with Prostate CancerNCT04775355Recruiting
CBM588 in Combination with Nivolumab and Cabozantinib for the Treatment of Advanced or Metastatic Kidney CancerNCT05122546Active, not recruiting
TAC/MTX vs. TAC/MMF/PTCY for Prevention of Graft-versus-Host Disease and Microbiome and Immune Reconstitution Study (BMT CTN 1703/1801) NCT03959241Completed
A Multiple Dose Study to Evaluate Safety, Tolerability, PK, and Efficacy of SER-155 in Adults Undergoing HSCTNCT04995653Active, not recruiting
CBM588 Capsules in Combination with Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for the Treatment of Advanced Stage Kidney CancerNCT06399419Recruiting
Adding Itacitinib to Cyclophosphamide and Tacrolimus for the Prevention of Graft Versus Host Disease in Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantsNCT05364762Recruiting
CBM588 in Improving Clinical Outcomes in Patients Who Have Undergone Donor Hematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantNCT03922035Active, not recruiting
Minnelide and Osimertinib for the Treatment of Advanced EGFR Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung CancerNCT05166616Recruiting
Atezolizumab, Guadecitabine, and CDX-1401 Vaccine in Treating Patients with Recurrent Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, or Primary Peritoneal CancerNCT03206047Active, not recruiting
Probiotic Yogurt Supplement in Reducing Diarrhea in Patients with Metastatic Kidney Cancer Being Treated With Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-Tyrosine Kinase InhibitorNCT02944617Completed
CBM588, Nivolumab, and Ipilimumab in Treating Patients with Stage IV or Advanced Kidney CancerNCT03829111Completed
Pembrolizumab, Endocrine Therapy, and Palbociclib in Treating Postmenopausal Patients with Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Stage IV Estrogen Receptor Positive Breast CancerNCT02778685Recruiting
Study of IL-22 IgG2-Fc (F-652) for Subjects with Grade II–IV Lower GI aGVHDNCT02406651Completed
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

McDonnell, K.J. Operationalizing Team Science at the Academic Cancer Center Network to Unveil the Structure and Function of the Gut Microbiome. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 2040. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14062040

AMA Style

McDonnell KJ. Operationalizing Team Science at the Academic Cancer Center Network to Unveil the Structure and Function of the Gut Microbiome. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025; 14(6):2040. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14062040

Chicago/Turabian Style

McDonnell, Kevin J. 2025. "Operationalizing Team Science at the Academic Cancer Center Network to Unveil the Structure and Function of the Gut Microbiome" Journal of Clinical Medicine 14, no. 6: 2040. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14062040

APA Style

McDonnell, K. J. (2025). Operationalizing Team Science at the Academic Cancer Center Network to Unveil the Structure and Function of the Gut Microbiome. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(6), 2040. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14062040

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop