抗生素敲除大鼠口服灌胃和磁导航技术辅助近端结肠/盲肠灌肠后粪便微生物群移植后微生物组组成的变化:一项比较实验研究。

IF 4 2区 生物学 Q2 MICROBIOLOGY
Xian-Jie Bai, Yu-Chen Mei, Jia-Tong Zhao, Zhi-Ren Chen, Chen-Xi Yang, Xiao-Juan Dong, Jia-Wei Yu, Lin-Biao Xiang, Er-Zheng Zhou, Yong Chen, Jia-Yi Hao, Zhi-Jie Zhang, Yu-Xuan Liuyang, Lu Ren, Ying-Min Yao, Lei Zhang, Yi Lv, Qiang Lu
{"title":"抗生素敲除大鼠口服灌胃和磁导航技术辅助近端结肠/盲肠灌肠后粪便微生物群移植后微生物组组成的变化:一项比较实验研究。","authors":"Xian-Jie Bai, Yu-Chen Mei, Jia-Tong Zhao, Zhi-Ren Chen, Chen-Xi Yang, Xiao-Juan Dong, Jia-Wei Yu, Lin-Biao Xiang, Er-Zheng Zhou, Yong Chen, Jia-Yi Hao, Zhi-Jie Zhang, Yu-Xuan Liuyang, Lu Ren, Ying-Min Yao, Lei Zhang, Yi Lv, Qiang Lu","doi":"10.1186/s12866-025-04026-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) transfers fecal matter from a donor into the gastrointestinal tract of a recipient to induce changes to the gut microbiota for therapeutic benefit; however, differences in the composition of gut microbiota after FMT via different donor material delivery routes are poorly understood. In this study, we first developed a novel technique for FMT, magnetic navigation technology(MAT)-assisted proximal colon enemas, in healthy Sprague-Dawley rats. Besides, the difference in fecal microbiota composition after FMT via oral gavage and proximal colon/cecum enemas was determined in antibiotic knock-down rats, in addition to the impact on intestinal barrier function.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A device consisting of an external magnet and a magnet-tipped 6 Fr tube was used in the MAT group (n = 6), and the control group (n = 6) where fecal matter was delivered without magnetic navigation. The feasibility and safety of this method were assessed by angiography and histology. Next, the fecal microbiota of donor rats was transplanted into antibiotic knock-down rats via oral gavage (n = 6) and MAT-assisted proximal colon/cecum enema (n = 6) for a week. Analysis of fecal 16 S rRNA was conducted to determine differences in the composition of gut microbiota between different groups. The rat intestinal barrier integrity were evaulated by H&E and ZO-1/MUC2 immunofluorescence staining.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The end of the fecal tube could be placed in the cecum or proximal colon of rats in MAT group; however, this was rarely achieved in the control group. No colon perforation or bleeding was detected in either group. After fecal microbiota transplantation, the microbiota α-diversity and β-diversity were comparable among the different delivery routes.At the family level, the relative abundances of Muribaculaceae, Oscillospiraceae, and Erysipelotrichaceae were higher in the gavage treatment group, whereas Lactobacillaceae and Saccharimonadaceae were higher in the enema treatment group (all p < 0.05). FMT by enema was superior to gavage in maintaining the integrity of the rat intestinal barrier, as assessed by an elevation in the density of goblet cells and increased expression of mucin-2.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Fecal microbiota tube placement using magnetic navigation was safe and feasible in rats.Different delivery route for FMT affects the gut microbiota composition and the integrity of the rat intestinal barrier. Future experimental designs should consider the colonization outcomes of critical microbial taxa to determine the optimal FMT delivery routes in scientific research as well as clinical practise.</p>","PeriodicalId":9233,"journal":{"name":"BMC Microbiology","volume":"25 1","pages":"295"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12079824/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Changes in microbiome composition after fecal microbiota transplantation via oral gavage and magnetic navigation technology-assisted proximal colon/cecum enema in antibiotic knock-down rats: a comparative experimental study.\",\"authors\":\"Xian-Jie Bai, Yu-Chen Mei, Jia-Tong Zhao, Zhi-Ren Chen, Chen-Xi Yang, Xiao-Juan Dong, Jia-Wei Yu, Lin-Biao Xiang, Er-Zheng Zhou, Yong Chen, Jia-Yi Hao, Zhi-Jie Zhang, Yu-Xuan Liuyang, Lu Ren, Ying-Min Yao, Lei Zhang, Yi Lv, Qiang Lu\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12866-025-04026-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) transfers fecal matter from a donor into the gastrointestinal tract of a recipient to induce changes to the gut microbiota for therapeutic benefit; however, differences in the composition of gut microbiota after FMT via different donor material delivery routes are poorly understood. In this study, we first developed a novel technique for FMT, magnetic navigation technology(MAT)-assisted proximal colon enemas, in healthy Sprague-Dawley rats. Besides, the difference in fecal microbiota composition after FMT via oral gavage and proximal colon/cecum enemas was determined in antibiotic knock-down rats, in addition to the impact on intestinal barrier function.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A device consisting of an external magnet and a magnet-tipped 6 Fr tube was used in the MAT group (n = 6), and the control group (n = 6) where fecal matter was delivered without magnetic navigation. The feasibility and safety of this method were assessed by angiography and histology. Next, the fecal microbiota of donor rats was transplanted into antibiotic knock-down rats via oral gavage (n = 6) and MAT-assisted proximal colon/cecum enema (n = 6) for a week. Analysis of fecal 16 S rRNA was conducted to determine differences in the composition of gut microbiota between different groups. The rat intestinal barrier integrity were evaulated by H&E and ZO-1/MUC2 immunofluorescence staining.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The end of the fecal tube could be placed in the cecum or proximal colon of rats in MAT group; however, this was rarely achieved in the control group. No colon perforation or bleeding was detected in either group. After fecal microbiota transplantation, the microbiota α-diversity and β-diversity were comparable among the different delivery routes.At the family level, the relative abundances of Muribaculaceae, Oscillospiraceae, and Erysipelotrichaceae were higher in the gavage treatment group, whereas Lactobacillaceae and Saccharimonadaceae were higher in the enema treatment group (all p < 0.05). FMT by enema was superior to gavage in maintaining the integrity of the rat intestinal barrier, as assessed by an elevation in the density of goblet cells and increased expression of mucin-2.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Fecal microbiota tube placement using magnetic navigation was safe and feasible in rats.Different delivery route for FMT affects the gut microbiota composition and the integrity of the rat intestinal barrier. Future experimental designs should consider the colonization outcomes of critical microbial taxa to determine the optimal FMT delivery routes in scientific research as well as clinical practise.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9233,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Microbiology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"295\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12079824/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-025-04026-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-025-04026-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:粪便微生物群移植(FMT)将粪便物质从供体转移到受体的胃肠道,以诱导肠道微生物群的变化以获得治疗效果;然而,通过不同的供体材料递送途径进行FMT后肠道微生物群组成的差异尚不清楚。在这项研究中,我们首先开发了一种新的FMT技术,磁导航技术(MAT)辅助近端结肠灌肠,用于健康的Sprague-Dawley大鼠。此外,测定抗生素敲除大鼠口服灌胃和近端结肠/盲肠灌肠FMT后粪便微生物群组成的差异以及对肠道屏障功能的影响。方法:MAT组(n = 6)和对照组(n = 6)采用外置磁体和磁头6fr管组成的装置,对照组(n = 6)采用不带磁导航的方式输送粪便。通过血管造影和组织学检查评价该方法的可行性和安全性。然后,将供体大鼠的粪便微生物群通过灌胃(n = 6)和mat辅助的近端结肠/盲肠灌肠(n = 6)移植到抗生素敲除大鼠体内一周。对粪便16s rRNA进行分析,以确定不同组之间肠道微生物群组成的差异。采用H&E和ZO-1/MUC2免疫荧光染色法评价大鼠肠道屏障的完整性。结果:MAT组大鼠粪便管末端可放置于盲肠或结肠近端;然而,这在对照组中很少实现。两组均未发现结肠穿孔或出血。粪便菌群移植后,不同递送途径的α-多样性和β-多样性具有可比性。在科水平上,灌胃组Muribaculaceae、Oscillospiraceae、丹毒杆菌科(erysipelotricaceae)的相对丰度较高,灌肠组Lactobacillaceae、Saccharimonadaceae的相对丰度较高(均p)。结论:磁导法放置粪便菌群管在大鼠体内是安全可行的。不同的给药途径会影响大鼠肠道菌群组成和肠道屏障的完整性。未来的实验设计应考虑关键微生物类群的定殖结果,以确定科学研究和临床实践中最佳的FMT递送路线。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Changes in microbiome composition after fecal microbiota transplantation via oral gavage and magnetic navigation technology-assisted proximal colon/cecum enema in antibiotic knock-down rats: a comparative experimental study.

Background: Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) transfers fecal matter from a donor into the gastrointestinal tract of a recipient to induce changes to the gut microbiota for therapeutic benefit; however, differences in the composition of gut microbiota after FMT via different donor material delivery routes are poorly understood. In this study, we first developed a novel technique for FMT, magnetic navigation technology(MAT)-assisted proximal colon enemas, in healthy Sprague-Dawley rats. Besides, the difference in fecal microbiota composition after FMT via oral gavage and proximal colon/cecum enemas was determined in antibiotic knock-down rats, in addition to the impact on intestinal barrier function.

Methods: A device consisting of an external magnet and a magnet-tipped 6 Fr tube was used in the MAT group (n = 6), and the control group (n = 6) where fecal matter was delivered without magnetic navigation. The feasibility and safety of this method were assessed by angiography and histology. Next, the fecal microbiota of donor rats was transplanted into antibiotic knock-down rats via oral gavage (n = 6) and MAT-assisted proximal colon/cecum enema (n = 6) for a week. Analysis of fecal 16 S rRNA was conducted to determine differences in the composition of gut microbiota between different groups. The rat intestinal barrier integrity were evaulated by H&E and ZO-1/MUC2 immunofluorescence staining.

Results: The end of the fecal tube could be placed in the cecum or proximal colon of rats in MAT group; however, this was rarely achieved in the control group. No colon perforation or bleeding was detected in either group. After fecal microbiota transplantation, the microbiota α-diversity and β-diversity were comparable among the different delivery routes.At the family level, the relative abundances of Muribaculaceae, Oscillospiraceae, and Erysipelotrichaceae were higher in the gavage treatment group, whereas Lactobacillaceae and Saccharimonadaceae were higher in the enema treatment group (all p < 0.05). FMT by enema was superior to gavage in maintaining the integrity of the rat intestinal barrier, as assessed by an elevation in the density of goblet cells and increased expression of mucin-2.

Conclusions: Fecal microbiota tube placement using magnetic navigation was safe and feasible in rats.Different delivery route for FMT affects the gut microbiota composition and the integrity of the rat intestinal barrier. Future experimental designs should consider the colonization outcomes of critical microbial taxa to determine the optimal FMT delivery routes in scientific research as well as clinical practise.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Microbiology
BMC Microbiology 生物-微生物学
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
280
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: BMC Microbiology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on analytical and functional studies of prokaryotic and eukaryotic microorganisms, viruses and small parasites, as well as host and therapeutic responses to them and their interaction with the environment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信