Next Article in Journal
Bifidobacterium as a Potential Biomarker of Sarcopenia in Elderly Women
Previous Article in Journal
Elementary School-Aged Children’s and Parents’ Report of Health-Related Quality of Life and Relationships with Lifestyle Measures: A Cross-Sectional Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Pilot Study: The Reduction in Fecal Acetate in Obese Patients after Probiotic Administration and Percutaneous Electrical Neurostimulation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/nu15051265
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Dietary-Derived Exosome-like Nanoparticles as Bacterial Modulators: Beyond MicroRNAs

by
Mari Cruz Manzaneque-López
1,2,
Christian M. Sánchez-López
2,3,
Pedro Pérez-Bermúdez
4,
Carla Soler
1,2,* and
Antonio Marcilla
2,3
1
Food & Health Lab, Institut de Ciències dels Materials, Universitat de València, Paterna, 46980 Valencia, Spain
2
Joint Research Unit on Endocrinology, Nutrition and Clinical Dietetics UV-IIS La Fe, 46012 Valencia, Spain
3
Àrea de Parasitologia, Departament de Farmàcia i Tecnologia Farmacèutica i Parasitologia, Universitat de València, Burjassot, 46100 Valencia, Spain
4
Departament de Biologia Vegetal, Facultat de Farmàcia, Universitat de València, Burjassot, 46100 Valencia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2023, 15(5), 1265; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15051265
Submission received: 2 February 2023 / Revised: 24 February 2023 / Accepted: 27 February 2023 / Published: 3 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diet and Disease Prevention: Dietary Compounds, MicroRNAs or Extracellular Vesicles)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
There is increasing evidence that food is an important factor that influences the composition of the gut microbiota. Usually, all the attention has been focused on nutrients such as lipids, proteins, vitamins, or polyphenols. However, a pivotal role in these processes has been linked to dietary-derived exosome-like nanoparticles (DELNs). While food macro- and micronutrient composition are largely well established, there is considerable interest in these DELNs and their cargoes. In this sense, traditionally, all the attention was focused on the proteins or miRNAs contained in these vesicles. However, it has been shown that DELNs would also carry other bioactive molecules with a key role in regulating biochemical pathways and/or interactions with the host’s gut microbiome affecting intracellular communication. Due to the scarce literature, it is necessary to compile the current knowledge about the antimicrobial capacity of DELNs and its possible molecular mechanisms that will serve as a starting point. For this reason, in this review, we highlight the impact of DENLs on different bacteria species modulating the host gut microbiota or antibacterial properties. It could be concluded that DELNs, isolated from both plant and animal foods, exert gut microbiota modulation. However, the presence of miRNA in the vesicle cargoes is not the only one responsible for this effect. Lipids present in the DELNs membrane or small molecules packed in may also be responsible for apoptosis signaling, inhibition, or growth promoters.
Keywords:
DELNs; microbiota; miRNA

1. Introduction

Bacteria are everywhere, including our bodies and foods. Most of these bacteria are harmless or helpful, as the species of bacteria that colonize our digestive system, playing a fundamental role in our health by providing defense against pathogens, aiding in nutrient processing, lowering serum cholesterol levels, and improving the immune functions, among others interactive roles [1,2]. In fact, the modulation of gut microbiota to a more favorable profile has been related to a reduced risk of developing a wide range of metabolic, immunological and neurological disorders [3].
In this sense, one of the main environmental drivers of microbiota composition and function is diet. It has become clear that compounds derived from food may promote gut health, either directly or by modulating the composition and function of the gut microbiota and interacting with factors and/or signaling pathways associated with intestinal immune function [4]. However, knowledge of the impact of specific foods or nutrients upon the intestinal microbiota and its mechanism is still limited. Advances in the knowledge of the interactions between food compounds and specific intestinal bacteria would lead to a better understanding of both positive and negative interactions with dietary habits [5].
In addition, an equilibrate microbiota (eubiosis) is also the first barrier against invasive pathogens or resident opportunists. In fact, an imbalanced gut microbiota (dysbiosis) can facilitate pathogen infection and favor a more virulent evolutionary trajectory for the invading pathogens [6]. In most cases, these pathogens reach the host through food. According to a report by the World Health Organization, it is estimated that, yearly, there is a global outbreak of 600 million foodborne diseases, resulting in 420,000 deaths [7]. Among them, the main cause of foodborne disease is bacteria (66%), and the most common alterations are intoxication and infection [8].
Apart from the repercussions for health, it also has economic repercussions unrelated to health since it is estimated that about 25% of annual food loss occurs from food contamination by foodborne pathogens [9]. For this reason, great efforts from the food industry are being dedicated to the development of strategies to prevent bacteria on food, either by killing or inhibiting microbial growth.
Traditional techniques such as salting, drying, freezing or fermentation are applied to extend the shelf life of food products, but there may be a risk of recontamination. Therefore, there is a continuous need for antimicrobial agents [10]. In this sense, several preservatives are employed by the food industry, mainly synthetic additives. Despite their great efficacy, the preservatives can have undesirable side effects, not only in humans but also by causing changes in the organoleptic and/or nutritional properties of food [11].
For this reason, in the last years, natural antipathogen compounds have been gaining interest in the food industry as food preservatives in order to reduce the use of chemical additives. These natural antimicrobials are produced and isolated from different sources, including plants, animals, and microorganisms [12]. An interesting alternative, put on the table in recent years, is the use of extracellular vesicles (EVs).
All bacteria naturally produce and release these EVs (BEVs) with diverse biological functions [13], and it appears to be a conserved process in both pathogenic and non-pathogenic bacteria [14].
In the 1960s, BEVs were first reported in Escherichia coli, but their existence has gained attention recently [15] owing to their important roles such as pathogenesis [16], inter-species, intra-species and inter-kingdom communication [17], stress tolerance [18], and immune stimulation [19].
Regarding this, there are many studies about the important role of BEVs, both produced by gut microbiota [20] or by foodborne bacteria [21], in the progression and severity of bacterial infections due to their interactions with animal host cells [22]. These BEVs are one of the key underlying mechanisms behind the harmful or beneficial effects of many pathogenic, symbiont, or probiotic bacteria [23].
In the same way that bacteria secrete EVs, it has been demonstrated that cells from food of both animal and plant origin also secrete them [24,25], and they could also interact with bacteria, regulating their growth or elimination. In view of this, different studies have speculated that these dietary-derived exosome-like nanoparticles (DENPs) would be the third actor between bacteria and hots, becoming a possible alternative strategy to increase or reduce some specific bacteria. However, the mechanism by which DENPs are involved in transkingdom communication is not clear yet.
Certainly, it is known that this cell-to-cell communication through DENPs is made by the transfer of biologically active molecules [26,27]. Although traditionally, all the attention was focused on the proteins or mRNAs contained [28], in recent years, it has been shown that they would also carry other bioactive molecules with a key role in intracellular communication, such as lipids and small-molecule metabolites [29,30].
In this review, we highlight the impact of DENPs on different bacteria species being able to modulate the host gut microbiome or to reduce the pathogenic bacteria population. We then provide an overview of the mechanism involved, recent progress, future potential, and also the remaining challenges of DENs for different biomedical applications.

2. Can DENPs Impact Bacteria? A Glance of Scientific Evidence

The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) defined prebiotics as a ‘substrate that is selectively utilized by host microorganisms conferring a health benefit’. Substrates considered a prebiotic are, for example, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA), non-digestible oligosaccharides (FOS, GOS), human milk oligosaccharides (HMOS), and phytochemicals [31,32].
These prebiotics are then fermented by microorganisms, and the microbial metabolic compounds produced might be responsible for their health benefits, enhancing the number of commensal bacteria and decreasing pathogenic bacteria [33]. As an example, it has been demonstrated that oligofructose (a dietary fiber type) supplementation in human studies induced specific microbial modifications that were associated with an increase in Bifidobacterium abundances [34]. It is well established that bifidobacteria confer positive health benefits to their host via their metabolic activities [35].
DENPs are EVs isolated from fruits or vegetables or from food from animal sources such as milk or honey. They have displayed promising results in different pathologies such as cancer, inflammation, nervous diseases, and musculoskeletal disorders. DENPs, especially from edible plants, are resistant to hard gastrointestinal conditions, thus reaching distant organs and allowing, for example, their interactions with gut microbiota [36,37].

2.1. Exosomes-like Nanoparticles from Edible Plants

2.1.1. Ginger Exosome-like Nanoparticles

Ginger (Zingiber officinale) is a plant whose rhizome has been widely used as a spice and as medicine. Around 400 bioactive compounds have been discovered in ginger that have shown potential health benefits such as anti-inflammatory, anti-tumor, anti-obesity, and antidiabetic effects, among others [38].
Ginger has been reported to show antimicrobial potential due to gingerol and paradol, shogaols and zingerone, which can inhibit the growth of bacteria and fungi proliferation [39]. It shows a potential activity against many Gram-negative bacteria, such as Escherichia coli, Helicobacter pylori, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella Newport, and Gram-positive bacteria, such as Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Bacillus subtilis or Bacillus nutto [40].
On the other hand, ginger can also modulate the microbiota population since 6-gingerol has demonstrated, during in-vitro assay, to be able to promote the adhesion of some probiotics (Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium) to colonic epithelial cells (NCM460 cells and Caco-2 cells), and continuously exerted probiotics activity [41].
Mu J et al. [42] isolated and purified for the first time ginger exosome-like nanoparticles (GELNs) in 2014. After that, various studies have shown the biological properties of GELNs [27,43,44,45,46,47]. However, only two studies have been focused on the antibacterial properties and microbiota modulation of ginger [48,49]. Table 1 summarizes the actions of GELNs on bacteria.
Teng et al. [48] analyzed tissue distribution of different plant-derived exosome-like nanoparticles (ELNs), detecting GELNs in the gut and feces over a 6-hr period. This fact demonstrated that these ELNs were more likely to stay in the intestine, while grapefruit ELNs preferentially migrated to the liver. Then, GELNs were administered to C57BL/6 mice for a week, and the microbial composition via the 16S rRNA gene (v1-v3 regions) was analyzed. The authors found that GELNs: (a) produced an increase in Lactobacillaceae and Bacteroidales S24-7, (b) had no effect on B. fragilis or E. coli growth, and (c) inhibited Ruminococcaceae growth and a decrease in Clostridiaceae (Table 1). It was hypothesized that the content and type of phosphatidic acid (PA) lipids of GELN may serve as a signal for preferential uptake by Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG).
This significant role of PA lipids was corroborated by Sundaram et al. [49], who concluded that PA present in the membrane of GELNs interacted with hemin-binding protein 35 (HBP35) on the surface of Porphyromonas gingivalis (P. gingivalis). In fact, the authors corroborated that the degree of unsaturation of PA plays a critical role in GELN-mediated interaction with HBP35. Consequently, GELNs were taken up by the pathogen leading to inhibition growth.
In the case of LGG, GELN-RNAs interact with a panel of bacteria genes, altering the composition of the gut microbiota. miR167a binds the LGG pilus protein SpaC and downregulates their expression [48]. Regarding aly-miR-159a, gma-miR-166u, and gma-miR-166p inhibited the expression of genes encoding virulence proteins of P. gingivalis [49].
Besides miRNA GELNs cargo, other studies have detected shogaol and gingerols in GELNs [27,42,46]. These compounds are volatile phenolic components with potential antimicrobial activities, among others; for example, it has been shown that gingerols analogs displayed inhibitory activity against P. gingivalis [50].
These results show that membrane lipids of GELNs could be bacteria-specific, and this lipid-bacteria interaction allows the uptake of these EVs. When binding occurs, the release of the EVs cargo triggers bacterial growth alteration.

2.1.2. Lemon Exosome-like Nanoparticles

Lemon is an edible fruit from the tree Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f. Its chemical composition includes phenolic acids, coumarins, carboxylic acids, amino acids, and vitamins (especially vitamin C), to which is attributed their beneficial properties (anticancer, anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, anti-obesity, and antidiabetic) [51].
Lemon exosome-like nanoparticles (LELNs) have been demonstrated to inhibit cancer cell proliferation-inducing apoptotic cell death [52,53] or inhibit the growth of p53-inactivated colorectal cancer cells [54].
Although lemon extracts have shown inhibitory activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria [55,56,57,58], no studies have been carried out demonstrating antimicrobial activity from LELNs.
However, it has been reported the use of LELNs as prebiotics. Thus, the modulation capacity by LELNs of probiotics such as Lactobacillus strains and Streptococcus thermophiles (STH) has been established; LELNs increased the bile resistance of LGG and inhibited Clostridioides difficile infection, which is responsible for antibiotic-associated colitis [59].
As it is shown in Figure 1, this probiotic mix (LGG and STH) previously treated with LELNs increases on the one hand, the AhR ligands indole-3-lactic acid (I3LA) and indole-3-carboxaldehyde (I3Ald), leading to induction of IL-22, and on the other hand, lactic acid, which leads an inhibition of Clostridioides difficile. Moreover, metabolites from STH can inhibit the LGG gluconeogenesis pathway to increase the production of I3LA and lactic acid when co-culturing these two strains, thus exhibiting a synergistic effect in protecting against Clostridioides difficile infection [59].
Further, the molecular mechanisms underlying the cross-talk between LELNs and LGG were studied. The authors explored the active component of LELNs that contributes to LGG bile resistance, suggesting that pectin content in LELNs was a major contributor to the increase of this resistance. In fact, previously, it was displayed that pectin from lemon peel improved the viability of LGG in gastric solution by interactions of its pectins with the polysaccharides and proteins on the bacterial cell surface [60].
Raimondo et al. [61] analyzed the LELNs cargo exploring its anti-inflammatory properties. A variety of the flavonoids identified in this study were previously described as possible gut microbiota modulators [62], mainly hesperidin and naringin.

2.1.3. Coconut Exosome-like Nanoparticles

Coconut water is the aqueous part of the coconut endosperm, which is consumed as a beverage. Its nutritional composition contains sugars, sugar alcohols, lipids, amino acids, nitrogenous compounds, minerals, vitamins, organic acids, enzymes, volatile aromatic compounds, and other biochemical compounds [63].
Several reports have shown coconut water as a valuable tool in the treatment of digestive disorders such as treatment of childhood diarrhea, gastroenteritis and cholera [64,65]. This effect has been attributed mainly to three peptides with antimicrobial activities identified in green coconut water (Cn-AMP1, Cn-AMP2 and Cn-AMP3) [66], although the mechanisms of action are unresolved.
Zhao Z et al. [67] isolated coconut exosome-like nanoparticles (CELNs) for the first time. They demonstrated the presence of extracellular miRNAs in coconut water, being the levels higher in mature coconut water than in immature coconut water. These miRNAs were likely to target the human genome and had great potential to affect gene expression (mainly targeting genes associated with metabolic growth).
Additionally, Yu et al. [68] analyzed more precisely the protein and microRNA content of CELNs and investigated the relationship between CELNs and bacteria in order to elucidate the factor affecting bacterial growth. Authors co-incubated Escherichia coli K-12 MG1655 and Lactobacillus plantarum WCFS1 with CELNs for 4 h and then examined genes (yegH, ptsG, rpoC, and ccpA, which may influence bacterial growth) expression in bacteria. CELNs repressed rpoC and yegH expression levels in MG1655 while elevating those of ccpA after stimulation with CELNs, speculating that the effects of exogenous EVs on bacterial gene expression levels may be attributable to their cargo miRNAs.
Moreover, the authors demonstrated that CELNs could be taken up by bacteria guaranteeing the survival and metabolism of the probiotic bacterium WCFS1.
The findings showed that CELNs could increase the growth of Escherichia coli K-12 MG1655 and accelerate the growth of Lactobacillus plantarum WCFS1 [67]. WCFS1 is recognized as a probiotic strain due to its immunomodulatory effects [69].

2.1.4. Tartary Buckwheat-Derived Nanovesicles

Tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum Gaertn.) is bitter buckwheat that originated in China. It is gaining popularity due to having higher concentrations of certain bioactive phytochemicals, which have protective effects against chronic diseases [70,71]. More concretely, it shows potential gastrointestinal benefits due to its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory capacity [72].
Liu Y et al. [73] isolated Tartary Buckwheat-Derived Nanovesicles (TBDNs) and evaluated their effects on gut microbiota. In the first step, the authors evaluated the distribution of TBDNs after 1 and 6 h after intragastric administration in mice. As shown in Figure 2, TBDNs were detected in the liver and colon, demonstrating that TBDNs could be absorbed and retained in the intestine, an important prerequisite for TBDNs’ action on the gut microbiota.
They concluded that some microRNAs transported in TBDNs could target functional genes of E. coli and L. rhamnosus, promoting their growth. Additionally, TBDNs changed the human fecal microecological diversity in comparison with the control group.
It is important to remark that proteins [74,75], flavonoids [76], soluble dietary fiber [77] and resistant starch [78,79] present in Tartary buckwheat could also be filled in TBDNs and involved in this gut microbiota modulation although it has not been studied so far.

2.2. Exosomes-like Nanoparticles from Animal-Derived Food

2.2.1. Milk Exosomes

The resistance of human and animal milk-derived EVs (MDEVs) to gastric digestion provides EV entry intact to the human intestine [80], delivering their cargo to intestinal cells and reaching systemic circulation to exert biological activities [81,82].
Due to the MDEVs’ content (proteins, peptides, lipids, coding and non-coding RNAs, oligosaccharides), MDEVs isolated from different species have shown multiple biological effects [81]. The studies researched the effects of MDEVs in the immune response (mainly anti-inflammatory properties), in diseases such as cancer and in other aspects of cell biology [80].
Owing to the critical roles of human breast milk (HBM) in supporting early human growth and development, it has been well-studied over the past decades and continues to attract intense research attention [83]. A particular focus is being paid to the effect that HBM-derived EVs have on the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Recently, it has been concluded that HBM-derived EVs can alter the intestinal immune response and the subsequent establishment of the microbiota with a cargo capable of influencing the local immune response to bacterial challenge [84,85].
Cow and bovine MDEVs have also shown an impact on the gut microbiota of mice. All studies are summarized in Table 2.
Zhou et al. [86] tested if bovine MDEVs could alter bacterial communities in the murine cecum. A total of 19 families were identified by 16S rRNA sequencing, with an increase of Lachnospiraceae, Firmicutes, and Tenericutes and of Verrucomicrobiaceae in treated mice. The modulation was associated with sex and age. These bacterial families have a direct impact on pathological and physiological conditions. However, the functional consequences of these changes in bacterial communities in the gut and the mechanisms by which these changes contribute to phenotypes of health and disease are unknown.
In another study, the colonic contents from C57BL/6 mice fed with MDEVs for eight weeks were collected, and the microbial composition was analyzed (87), with a finding of an increase in the abundance of Clostridiaceae, Ruminococcaceae and Lachnospiraceae in MDEVs-treated mice. Moreover, the results showed that Ruminococcaceae and Dehalobacteriaceae had significant positive correlations with acetate and butyrate, and Verrucomicrobiaceae had significant positive correlations with isovaleric and n-valeric. Consequently, MDEVs not only alter the gut microbiota composition but also modulate their metabolites.
In view of the good results, these authors [88] explored the therapeutic effects of MDEVs on mice with induced ulcerative colitis (UC). Firstly, they tested the biodistribution of MDEVs, checking that MDEVs reached the small intestines at 1 h and the colon at 6 h. After 12 h, MDEVs were mainly located in the colon. These findings demonstrated that MDEVs via oral administration could reach the colon and stay for a long time in the gut. Moreover, the results showed that the disturbed gut microbiota in UC was also partially recovered upon treatment with MDEVs.
It is known that gut microbial diversity decreased in DSS-induced colitis. Interestingly, mice treated with MDEVs recovered the relative abundance of bacteria nearly to the level in the control mice and a promising probiotic, Akkermansia, was significantly increased.
Du et al. [89] found in female mice, the treatment with MDEVs supposed an enrichment of beneficial microbes such as Muribaculum and Turicibacter and a decrease of the harmful genera Desulfovibrio and Marvinbryantia compared with the PBS group. In male mice, MDEVs prominently increased the abundance of Akkermansia and decreased the level of Desulfovibrio. Although the relative abundance of the identified bacteria was different between female and male mice in response to bovine MDEVs, the overall trend influencing the increase or decrease in the gut microbiota was the same regardless of gender. In this study, the effect of MDEVs on gut microbial metabolites was also determined; in female mice, the proportions of acetic acid, propionate and butyrate were higher in the MDEVs groups, while in male mice, MDEVs significantly increased the proportion of acetic acid, decreased the proportion of propionate, and had no significant role in the butyrate concentration.
It is important to highlight that in these studies, the molecular mechanism explanation of how these MDEVs interact with gut microbiota is missing.

2.2.2. Honey Exosome-like Nanoparticles

Bee-derived products (honey, royal jelly, venom, propolis and pollen) have been reported to exert antimicrobial effects increasing interest in the compounds responsible for these properties [90].
The antibacterial activities of honey are due to lower water activity, high content sugar, glycogenic acid and hydrogen peroxide, both generated by glucose oxidase, peptide defensin-1 (Def-1), and polyphenol compounds [91]. On the other hand, the antibacterial activity of Royal Jelly is a consequence of the synergy between MRJPs, jelleines, royalisin, and trans-10-hydroxy-2-decenoic acid (10-had) fatty acid. At the same time, the antibacterial mechanism of pollen could be exerted by glucose oxidase, phenolic content, phenol content and bioactive compound as fatty acids [90].
Honey-derived EVs (HDEVs) have also been proposed as possibly responsible for these beneficial effects. In fact, previous studies have demonstrated the existence of EVs isolated from pollen, royal jelly and honey and related to antimicrobial effects.
Based on the research of Schuh et al. [92], EVs from Apis mellifera bee pollen, honey (HDEVs) and royal jelly had bacteriostatic, bactericidal and biofilm-inhibiting effects on Staphylococcus aureus. However, the underlying mechanism is still not understood. Assessing the role of EVs within the antibacterial properties of the crude products, the authors found that EVs-depleted bee pollen and royal jelly displayed inhibitory and bactericidal effects at 5% (v/v), while EVs-rich bee pollen and royal jelly inhibited bacterial growth at 1%. No difference was found for EVs-depleted honey (both 1%). Interestingly, in contrast to its isolated EVs, crude royal jelly displayed a significantly lower biofilm-inhibitory capacity compared with bee pollen and honey.
HDVs’ antibacterial effect has also been tested against the relevant caries-associated Streptococcus mutans and the effect on the commensal Streptococcus sanguinis, which has been described as an important antagonistic species to S. mutans. Its prevalence within the biofilm is mostly associated with health conditions [93]. Antibacterial molecules such as MRJP1, defensin-1 and jellein-3 were found as intravesicular cargo. Similarly, Chen et al. [94] identified MRJP1, 2, 4, 8, and 9, but not Jellein-3 or def-1 as HDEVs cargo.
After bacteria incubation with different HDEVs concentrations [93], results demonstrated that, despite leading to an antibacterial effect on both strains of oral streptococci, HDEVs had a pronounced activity against S. mutans compared to S. sanguinis. It could be associated with mechanical alterations resulting in membrane damage.
Bactericidal effect on S. aureus of royal jelly-derived EVs (RJDEVs) had been confirmed in vivo [95]. After 48 h, in mice treated with collagen gel with RJDEVS, no bacteria were detected. In this study, MRJP1, def-1 and Jellein-3 were identified in the EVs.
These findings suggest that MRJP1, def-1 and Jellein-3 are responsible for the antibacterial function of HDEVs. However, in the absence of a metabolomics analysis of the cargo, it is not possible to say that peptides alone are responsible for the observed effects.
The bactericidal effect on S. aureus of royal jelly-derived EVs (RJDEVs) has been confirmed in vivo [95]. After 48 h, in mice treated with collagen gel with RJDEVS, no bacteria were detected. In this study, MRJP1, def-1 and Jellein-3 were identified in the EVs.
These findings suggest that MRJP1, def-1 and Jellein-3 are responsible for the antibacterial function of HDEVs. However, in the absence of a metabolomics analysis of the cargo, it is not possible to say that peptides alone are responsible for the observed effects.

3. Conclusions

This review has summarized recent research on the functionality of DELNs as a bacterial modulator, and we can conclude that the evidence strongly conveys that DELNs have a direct impact on bacteria growth.
While it is true that most studies are focused on miRNA-EVs as the key molecules responsible for the interaction between DELNs and bacteria, other bioactive molecules packed in EVs, i.e., lipids integrating the membrane, are gradually arising as alternative key compounds involved in gut microbiota modulation.
Numerous studies have highlighted the role of microbiota in health and the importance of maintaining eubiosis. For this reason, there is a crucial need for a better understanding of how DELNs interact with bacteria and how to induce a microbiota modulation useful for disease treatment. For this, further investigation is necessary prior to deliver EVs-based therapies clinically.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and Writing–Original Draft Preparation, M.C.M.-L. and C.S.; Review & Editing, P.P.-B.; Visualization, C.M.S.-L.; Supervision, Project Administration and Funding Acquisition, A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Supported by AEI-Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain (Grant PID2019-105713GB-I00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033), and Conselleria d’Educació, Cultura i Esports, Generalitat Valenciana, Spain (Grant PROMETEO/2020/071). C.M.S-L is the recipient of a predoctoral fellowship (PRE2020-092458) funded by AEI/10.13039/501100011033. Part of “Red Traslacional para la Aplicación Clínica de Vesículas Extracelulares, Tentacles, (RED2018-102411-T, Agencia Estatal de Investigación, Spain.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tlaskalova-Hogenova, H.; Stepankova, R.; Kozakova, H.; Hudcovic, T.; Vannucci, L.; Tuckova, L.; Rossmann, P.; Hrncir, T.; Kverka, M.; Zakostelska, Z.; et al. The role of gut microbiota (commensal bacteria) and the mucosal barrier in the pathogenesis of inflammatory and autoimmune diseases and cancer: Contribution of germ-free and gnotobiotic animal models of human diseases. Cell Mol. Immunol. 2011, 8, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Baky, M.H.; Elshahed, M.S.; Wessjohann, L.A.; Farag, M.A. Interactions between dietary flavonoids and the gut microbiome: A comprehensive review. Br. J. Nutr. 2021, 128, 577–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Li, L.; Ma, L.; Fu, P. Gut microbiota–derived short-chain fatty acids and kidney diseases. Drug Des. Dev. Ther. 2017, 11, 3531–3542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Zimmermann, C.; Wagner, A.E. Impact of Food-Derived Bioactive Compounds on Intestinal Immunity. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 1901–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Rinninella, E.; Cintoni, M.; Raoul, P.; Lopetuso, L.R.; Scaldaferri, F.; Pulcini, G.; Miggiano, G.A.D.; Gasbarrini, A.; Mele, M.C. Food Components and Dietary Habits: Keys for a Healthy Gut Microbiota Composition. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Rueda-Robles, A.; Rodríguez-Lara, A.; Meyers, M.S.; Sáez-Lara, M.J.; Álvarez-Mercado, A.I. Effect of Probiotics on Host-Microbiota in Bacterial Infections. Pathogens 2022, 11, 986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Oliver, S.P. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease Special Issue on the National and International PulseNet Network. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2019, 16, 439–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Addis, M.; Sisay, D. A Review on Major Food Borne Bacterial Illnesses. J. Trop. Dis. 2015, 3, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bintsis, T. Foodborne pathogens. AIMS Microbiol. 2017, 3, 529–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Malhotra, B.; Keshwani, A.; Kharkwal, H. Antimicrobial food packaging: Potential and pitfalls. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Pisoschi, A.M.; Pop, A.; Georgescu, C.; Turcuş, V.; Olah, N.K.; Mathe, E. An overview of natural antimicrobials role in food. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2018, 143, 922–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Nawaz, N.; Wen, S.; Wang, F.; Nawaz, S.; Raza, J.; Iftikhar, M.; Usman, M. Lysozyme and Its Application as Antibacterial Agent in Food Industry. Molecules 2022, 27, 6305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Schwechheimer, C.; Kuehn, M.J. Outer-membrane vesicles from Gram-negative bacteria: Biogenesis and functions. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2015, 13, 605–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Bose, S.; Aggarwal, S.; Singh, D.V.; Acharya, N. Extracellular vesicles: An emerging platform in gram-positive bacteria. Microb. Cell 2020, 7, 312–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Knox, K.W.; Vesk, M.; Work, E. Relation Between Excreted Lipopolysaccharide Complexes and Surface Structures of a Lysine-Limited Culture of Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol. 1966, 92, 1206–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Park, K.-S.; Lee, J.; Jang, S.C.; Kim, S.R.; Jang, M.H.; Lötvall, J.; Kim, Y.-K.; Gho, Y.S. Pulmonary Inflammation Induced by Bacteria-Free Outer Membrane Vesicles from Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol. 2013, 49, 637–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Brown, L.; Wolf, J.M.; Prados-Rosales, R.; Casadevall, A. Through the wall: Extracellular vesicles in Gram-positive bacteria, mycobacteria and fungi. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2015, 13, 620–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Kim, S.W.; Seo, J.-S.; Bin Park, S.; Lee, A.R.; Lee, J.S.; Jung, J.W.; Chun, J.H.; Lazarte, J.M.S.; Kim, J.; Kim, J.-H.; et al. Significant increase in the secretion of extracellular vesicles and antibiotics resistance from methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus induced by ampicillin stress. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 21066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhou, X.; Xie, F.; Wang, L.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, S.; Fang, M.; Zhou, F. The function and clinical application of extracellular vesicles in innate immune regulation. Cell. Mol. Immunol. 2020, 17, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fonseca, S.; Carvalho, A.L.; Miquel-Clopés, A.; Jones, E.J.; Juodeikis, R.; Stentz, R.; Carding, S.R. Extracellular vesicles produced by the human gut commensal bacterium Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron elicit anti-inflammatory responses from innate immune cells. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 1050271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Furuyama, N.; Sircili, M.P. Outer Membrane Vesicles (OMVs) Produced by Gram-Negative Bacteria: Structure, Functions, Biogenesis, and Vaccine Application. BioMed Res. Int. 2021, 2021, 1490732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hosseini-Giv, N.; Basas, A.; Hicks, C.; El-Omar, E.; El-Assaad, F.; Hosseini-Beheshti, E. Bacterial extracellular vesicles and their novel therapeutic applications in health and cancer. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 962216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Jahromi, L.P.; Fuhrmann, G. Bacterial extracellular vesicles: Understanding biology promotes applications as nanopharmaceuticals. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2021, 173, 125–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Fan, S.-J.; Chen, J.-Y.; Tang, C.-H.; Zhao, Q.-Y.; Zhang, J.-M.; Qin, Y.-C. Edible plant extracellular vesicles: An emerging tool for bioactives delivery. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 1028418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Reif, S.; Atias, A.; Musseri, M.; Koroukhov, N.; Gerstl, R.G. Beneficial Effects of Milk-Derived Extracellular Vesicles on Liver Fibrosis Progression by Inhibiting Hepatic Stellate Cell Activation. Nutrients 2022, 14, 4049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ju, S.; Mu, J.; Dokland, T.; Zhuang, X.; Wang, Q.; Jiang, H.; Xiang, X.; Deng, Z.-B.; Wang, B.; Zhang, L.; et al. Grape exosomelike nanoparticles induce intestinal stem cells and protect mice from dss-induced colitis. Mol. Ther. 2013, 21, 1345–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Zhang, M.; Viennois, E.; Prasad, M.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Z.; Han, M.K.; Xiao, B.; Xu, C.; Srinivasan, S.; et al. Edible ginger-derived nanoparticles: A novel therapeutic approach for the prevention and treatment of inflammatory bowel disease and coli-tis-associated cancer. Biomaterials 2016, 101, 321–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. del Pozo-Acebo, L.; López de las Hazas, M.-C.; Margollés, A.; Dávalos, A.; García-Ruiz, A. Eating microRNAs: Pharmacological opportunities for cross-kingdom regulation and implications in host gene and gut microbiota modulation. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2021, 178, 2218–2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kim, S.Q.; Kim, K.-H. Emergence of Edible Plant-Derived Nanovesicles as Functional Food Components and Nanocarriers for Therapeutics Delivery: Potentials in Human Health and Disease. Cells 2022, 11, 2232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lian, M.Q.; Chng, W.H.; Liang, J.; Yeo, H.Q.; Lee, C.K.; Belaid, M.; Tollemeto, M.; Wacker, M.G.; Czarny, B.; Pastorin, G. Plant-derived extracellular vesicles: Recent advancements and current challenges on their use for biomedical applications. J. Extracell. Vesicles 2022, 11, e12283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. 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] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Davani-Davari, D.; Negahdaripour, M.; Karimzadeh, I.; Seifan, M.; Mohkam, M.; Masoumi, S.J.; Berenjian, A.; Ghasemi, Y. Prebiotics: Definition, types, sources, mechanisms, and clinical applications. Foods 2019, 8, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Bedu-Ferrari, C.; Biscarrat, P.; Langella, P.; Cherbuy, C. Prebiotics and the Human Gut Microbiota: From Breakdown Mechanisms to the Impact on Metabolic Health. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Neyrinck, A.M.; Rodriguez, J.; Zhang, Z.; Seethaler, B.; Sánchez, C.R.; Roumain, M.; Hiel, S.; Bindels, L.B.; Cani, P.D.; Paquot, N.; et al. Prebiotic dietary fibre intervention improves fecal markers related to inflammation in obese patients: Results from the Food4Gut randomized placebo-controlled trial. Eur. J. Nutr. 2021, 60, 3159–3170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. O’Callaghan, A.; van Sinderen, D. Bifidobacteria and Their Role as Members of the Human Gut Microbiota. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Munir, J.; Lee, M.; Ryu, S. Exosomes in Food: Health Benefits and Clinical Relevance in Diseases. Adv. Nutr. Int. Rev. J. 2020, 11, 687–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nemati, M.; Singh, B.; Mir, R.A.; Nemati, M.; Babaei, A.; Ahmadi, M.; Rasmi, Y.; Golezani, A.G.; Rezaie, J. Plant-derived extracellular vesicles: A novel nanomedicine approach with advantages and challenges. Cell Commun. Signal. 2022, 20, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Mao, Q.-Q.; Xu, X.-Y.; Cao, S.-Y.; Gan, R.-Y.; Corke, H.; Beta, T.; Li, H.-B. Bioactive Compounds and Bioactivities of Ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe). Foods 2019, 8, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Ma, R.-H.; Ni, Z.-J.; Zhu, Y.-Y.; Thakur, K.; Zhang, F.; Zhang, Y.-Y.; Hu, F.; Zhang, J.-G.; Wei, Z.-J. A recent update on the multifaceted health benefits associated with ginger and its bioactive components. Food Funct. 2020, 12, 519–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ramzan, M.; Zeshan, B. Assessment of the Phytochemical Analysis and Antimicrobial Potentials of Zingiber zerumbet. Molecules 2023, 28, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jiang, Q.; Xu, N.; Kong, L.; Wang, M.; Lei, H. Promoting effects of 6-Gingerol on probiotic adhesion to colonic epithelial cells. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 41, 678–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mu, J.; Zhuang, X.; Wang, Q.; Jiang, H.; Deng, Z.B.; Wang, B.; Zhang, L.; Kakar, S.; Jun, Y.; Miller, D.; et al. Interspecies communication between plant and mouse gut host cells through edible plant derived exosome-like nanoparticles. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2014, 58, 1561–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Zhuang, X.; Deng, Z.-B.; Mu, J.; Zhang, L.; Yan, J.; Miller, D.; Feng, W.; McClain, C.J.; Zhang, H.-G. Ginger-derived nanoparticles protect against alcohol-induced liver damage. J. Extracell. Vesicles 2015, 4, 28713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Li, Z.; Wang, H.; Yin, H.; Bennett, C.; Zhang, H.G.; Guo, P. Arrowtail RNA for Ligand Display on Ginger Exosome-like Nanovesicles to Systemic Deliver siRNA for Cancer Suppression. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 14644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Chen, X.; Zhou, Y.; Yu, J. Exosome-like Nanoparticles from Ginger Rhizomes Inhibited NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation. Mol. Pharm. 2019, 16, 2690–2699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mao, Y.; Han, M.; Chen, C.; Wang, X.; Han, J.; Gao, Y.; Wang, S. A biomimetic nanocomposite made of a ginger-derived exosome and an inorganic framework for high-performance delivery of oral antibodies. Nanoscale 2021, 13, 20157–20169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Man, F.; Meng, C.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Ma, J.; Lu, R. The Study of Ginger-Derived Extracellular Vesicles as a Natural Nanoscale Drug Carrier and Their Intestinal Absorption in Rats. AAPS PharmSciTech 2021, 22, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Teng, Y.; Ren, Y.; Sayed, M.; Hu, X.; Lei, C.; Kumar, A.; Hutchins, E.; Mu, J.; Deng, Z.; Luo, C.; et al. Plant-Derived Exosomal MicroRNAs Shape the Gut Microbiota. Cell Host Microbe 2018, 24, 637–652.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Sundaram, K.; Miller, D.P.; Kumar, A.; Teng, Y.; Sayed, M.; Mu, J.; Lei, C.; Sriwastva, M.K.; Zhang, L.; Yan, J.; et al. Plant-Derived Exosomal Nanoparticles Inhibit Pathogenicity of Porphyromonas gingivalis. iScience 2019, 21, 308–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Semwal, R.B.; Semwal, D.K.; Combrinck, S.; Viljoen, A.M. Gingerols and shogaols: Important nutraceutical principles from ginger. Phytochemistry 2015, 117, 554–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Klimek-Szczykutowicz, M.; Szopa, A.; Ekiert, H. Citrus limon (Lemon) Phenomenon—A Review of the Chemistry, Pharmacological Properties, Applications in the Modern Pharmaceutical, Food, and Cosmetics Industries, and Biotechnological Studies. Plants 2020, 9, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Raimondo, S.; Naselli, F.; Fontana, S.; Monteleone, F.; Dico, A.L.; Saieva, L.; Zito, G.; Flugy, A.; Manno, M.; Di Bella, M.A.; et al. Citrus limon-derived nanovesicles inhibit cancer cell proliferation and suppress CML xenograft growth by inducing TRAIL-mediated cell death. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 19514–19527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Yang, M.; Liu, X.; Luo, Q.; Xu, L.; Chen, F. An efficient method to isolate lemon derived extracellular vesicles for gastric cancer therapy. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2020, 18, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Takakura, H.; Nakao, T.; Narita, T.; Horinaka, M.; Nakao-Ise, Y.; Yamamoto, T.; Iizumi, Y.; Watanabe, M.; Sowa, Y.; Oda, K.; et al. Citrus limon L.-Derived Nanovesicles Show an Inhibitory Effect on Cell Growth in p53-Inactivated Colorectal Cancer Cells via the Macropinocytosis Pathway. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Otang, W.; Afolayan, A. Antimicrobial and antioxidant efficacy of Citrus limon L. peel extracts used for skin diseases by Xhosa tribe of Amathole District, Eastern Cape, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2016, 102, 46–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hamdan, D.; Ashour, M.L.; Mulyaningsih, S.; El-Shazly, A.; Wink, M. Chemical Composition of the Essential Oils of Variegated Pink-Fleshed Lemon (Citrus x limon L. Burm. f.) and their Anti-Inflammatory and Antimicrobial Activities. Z. Naturforsch. C J. Biosci. 2013, 68, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Espina, L.; Somolinos, M.; Ouazzou, A.A.; Condón, S.; García-Gonzalo, D.; Pagán, R. Inactivation of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in fruit juices by combined treatments of citrus fruit essential oils and heat. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012, 159, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Y.; Chen, F.; Yu, Z.; Wang, L.; Chen, S.; Guo, M. Effect of citrus lemon oil on growth and adherence of Streptococcus mutans. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013, 29, 1161–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Lei, C.; Mu, J.; Teng, Y.; He, L.; Xu, F.; Zhang, X.; Sundaram, K.; Kumar, A.; Sriwastva, M.K.; Lawrenz, M.B.; et al. Lemon Exosome-like Nanoparticles-Manipulated Probiotics Protect Mice from C. diff Infection. iScience 2020, 23, 101571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Larsen, N.; Cahú, T.B.; Saad, S.M.I.; Blennow, A.; Jespersen, L. The effect of pectins on survival of probiotic Lactobacillus spp. in gastrointestinal juices is related to their structure and physical properties. Food Microbiol. 2018, 74, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Raimondo, S.; Urzì, O.; Meraviglia, S.; Di Simone, M.; Corsale, A.M.; Ganji, N.R.; Piccionello, A.P.; Polito, G.; Presti, E.L.; Dieli, F.; et al. Anti-inflammatory properties of lemon-derived extracellular vesicles are achieved through the inhibition of ERK/NF-κB signalling pathways. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2022, 26, 4195–4209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Stevens, Y.; Van Rymenant, E.; Grootaert, C.; Van Camp, J.; Possemiers, S.; Masclee, A.; Jonkers, D. The Intestinal Fate of Citrus Flavanones and Their Effects on Gastrointestinal Health. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Yong, J.W.H.; Ge, L.; Ng, Y.F.; Tan, S.N. The Chemical Composition and Biological Properties of Coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) Water. Molecules 2009, 14, 5144–5164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Segura-Badilla, O.; Lazcano-Hernández, M.; Kammar-García, A.; Vera-López, O.; Aguilar-Alonso, P.; Ramírez-Calixto, J.; Navarro-Cruz, A.R. Use of coconut water (Cocus nucifera L.) for the development of a symbiotic functional drink. Heliyon 2020, 6, e03653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Mujahid, I.; Mulyanto, A.; Khasanah, T.U. The effectiveness of coconut water in inhibiting shigella sp. bacteria from diarrhea. Medisains 2019, 17, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mandal, S.M.; Dey, S.; Mandal, M.; Sarkar, S.; Maria-Neto, S.; Franco, O.L. Identification and structural insights of three novel antimicrobial peptides isolated from green coconut water. Peptides 2009, 30, 633–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Zhao, Z.; Yu, S.; Li, M.; Gui, X.; Li, P. Isolation of Exosome-Like Nanoparticles and Analysis of MicroRNAs Derived from Coconut Water Based on Small RNA High-Throughput Sequencing. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 2749–2757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yu, S.; Zhao, Z.; Xu, X.; Li, M.; Li, P. Characterization of three different types of extracellular vesicles and their impact on bacterial growth. Food Chem. 2018, 272, 372–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. van Beek, A.; Sovran, B.; Hugenholtz, F.; Meijer, B.; Hoogerland, J.A.; Mihailova, V.; Van Der Ploeg, C.; Belzer, C.; Boekschoten, M.V.; Hoeijmakers, J.H.J.; et al. Supplementation with Lactobacillus plantarum WCFS1 Prevents Decline of Mucus Barrier in Colon of Accelerated Aging Ercc1−/Δ7 Mice. Front. Immunol. 2016, 7, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Zhu, F. Chemical composition and health effects of Tartary buckwheat. Food Chem. 2016, 203, 231–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zou, L.; Wu, D.; Ren, G.; Hu, Y.; Peng, L.; Zhao, J.; Garcia-Perez, P.; Carpena, M.; Prieto, M.A.; Cao, H.; et al. Bioactive compounds, health benefits, and industrial applications of Tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum). Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 63, 657–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Valido, E.; Stoyanov, J.; Gorreja, F.; Stojic, S.; Niehot, C.; Jong, J.K.-D.; Llanaj, E.; Muka, T.; Glisic, M. Systematic Review of Human and Animal Evidence on the Role of Buckwheat Consumption on Gastrointestinal Health. Nutrients 2022, 15, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Liu, Y.; Tan, M.-L.; Zhu, W.-J.; Cao, Y.-N.; Peng, L.-X.; Yan, Z.-Y.; Zhao, G. In Vitro Effects of Tartary Buckwheat-Derived Nanovesicles on Gut Microbiota. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2022, 70, 2616–2629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Zhou, X.-L.; Yan, B.-B.; Xiao, Y.; Zhou, Y.-M.; Liu, T.-Y. Tartary buckwheat protein prevented dyslipidemia in high-fat diet-fed mice associated with gut microbiota changes. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2018, 119, 296–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Liu, J.; Song, Y.; Zhao, Q.; Wang, Y.; Li, C.; Zou, L.; Hu, Y. Effects of Tartary Buckwheat Protein on Gut Microbiome and Plasma Metabolite in Rats with High-Fat Diet. Foods 2021, 10, 2457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Cheng, W.; Cai, C.; Kreft, I.; Turnšek, T.L.; Zu, M.; Hu, Y.; Zhou, M.; Liao, Z. Tartary Buckwheat Flavonoids Improve Colon Lesions and Modulate Gut Microbiota Composition in Diabetic Mice. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2022, 2022, 4524444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. He, X.; Li, W.; Chen, Y.; Lei, L.; Li, F.; Zhao, J.; Zeng, K.; Ming, J. Dietary fiber of Tartary buckwheat bran modified by steam explosion alleviates hyperglycemia and modulates gut microbiota in db/db mice. Food Res. Int. 2022, 157, 111386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zhou, Y.; Wei, Y.; Yan, B.; Zhao, S.; Zhou, X. Regulation of tartary buckwheat-resistant starch on intestinal microflora in mice fed with high-fat diet. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 8, 3243–3251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zhou, Y.; Zhao, S.; Jiang, Y.; Wei, Y.; Zhou, X. Regulatory Function of Buckwheat-Resistant Starch Supplementation on Lipid Profile and Gut Microbiota in Mice Fed with a High-Fat Diet. J. Food Sci. 2019, 84, 2674–2681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ong, S.; Blenkiron, C.; Haines, S.; Acevedo-Fani, A.; Leite, J.; Zempleni, J.; Anderson, R.; McCann, M. Ruminant Milk-Derived Extracellular Vesicles: A Nutritional and Therapeutic Opportunity? Nutrients 2021, 13, 2505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jiang, X.; You, L.; Zhang, Z.; Cui, X.; Zhong, H.; Sun, X.; Ji, C.; Chi, X. Biological Properties of Milk-Derived Extracellular Vesicles and Their Physiological Functions in Infant. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021, 9, 693534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. García-Martínez, J.; Pérez-Castillo, M.; Salto, R.; López-Pedrosa, J.M.; Rueda, R.; Girón, M.D. Beneficial Effects of Bovine Milk Exosomes in Metabolic Interorgan Cross-Talk. Nutrients 2022, 14, 1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Yi, D.Y.; Kim, S.Y. Human Breast Milk Composition and Function in Human Health: From Nutritional Components to Microbiome and MicroRNAs. Nutrients 2021, 13, 3094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Zempleni, J.; Aguilar-Lozano, A.; Sadri, M.; Sukreet, S.; Manca, S.; Di Wu, D.; Zhou, F.; Mutai, E. Biological Activities of Extracellular Vesicles and Their Cargos from Bovine and Human Milk in Humans and Implications for Infants. J. Nutr. 2017, 147, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Galley, J.D.; Besner, G.E. The Therapeutic Potential of Breast Milk-Derived Extracellular Vesicles. Nutrients 2020, 12, 745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Zhou, F.; Paz, H.A.; Sadri, M.; Cui, J.; Kachman, S.D.; Fernando, S.C.; Zempleni, J. Dietary bovine milk exosomes elicit changes in bacterial communities in C57BL/6 mice. Am. J. Physiol. Liver Physiol. 2019, 317, G618–G624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Tong, L.; Hao, H.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Lv, Y.; Zhang, L.; Yi, H. Oral Administration of Bovine Milk-Derived Extracellular Vesicles Alters the Gut Microbiota and Enhances Intestinal Immunity in Mice. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2020, 64, e1901251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Tong, L.; Hao, H.; Zhang, Z.; Lv, Y.; Liang, X.; Liu, Q.; Liu, T.; Gong, P.; Zhang, L.; Cao, F.; et al. Milk-derived extracellular vesicles alleviate ulcerative colitis by regulating the gut immunity and reshaping the gut microbiota. Theranostics 2021, 11, 8570–8586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Du, C.; Quan, S.; Nan, X.; Zhao, Y.; Shi, F.; Luo, Q.; Xiong, B. Effects of oral milk extracellular vesicles on the gut microbiome and serum metabolome in mice. Food Funct. 2021, 12, 10938–10949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Nader, R.; Mackieh, R.; Wehbe, R.; El Obeid, D.; Sabatier, J.; Fajloun, Z. Beehive Products as Antibacterial Agents: A Review. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Majtan, J.; Bucekova, M.; Kafantaris, I.; Szweda, P.; Hammer, K.; Mossialos, D. Honey antibacterial activity: A neglected aspect of honey quality assurance as functional food. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 118, 870–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Schuh, C.M.A.P.; Aguayo, S.; Zavala, G.; Khoury, M. Exosome-like vesicles in Apis mellifera bee pollen, honey and royal jelly contribute to their antibacterial and pro-regenerative activity. J. Exp. Biol. 2019, 222 Pt 20, jeb.208702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Leiva-Sabadini, C.; Alvarez, S.; Barrera, N.P.; Schuh, C.M.; Aguayo, S. Antibacterial Effect of Honey-Derived Exosomes Containing Antimicrobial Peptides against Oral Streptococci. Int. J. Nanomed. 2021, 16, 4891–4900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Chen, X.; Liu, B.; Li, X.; An, T.T.; Zhou, Y.; Li, G.; Wu-Smart, J.; Alvarez, S.; Naldrett, M.J.; Eudy, J.; et al. Identification of anti-inflammatory vesicle-like nanoparticles in honey. J. Extracell. Vesicles 2021, 10, e12069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Alvarez, S.; Aguayo, S.; Ramirez, O.; Vallejos, C.; Ruiz, J.; Morales, B. Extracellular Vesicles derived from Apis mellifera Royal Jelly promote wound healing by modulating inflammation and cellular responses RJEVs modulate inflammation in wound healing. arXiv 2022, arXiv:07.21.501009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nutrients 15 01265 g001 550
Figure 1. Mechanism of protection of LENLs-treated LGG and STH against Clostridioides difficile infection. (Reprinted with permission from Lei C et al. [59] Copyright 2023 American Chemical Society).
Figure 1. Mechanism of protection of LENLs-treated LGG and STH against Clostridioides difficile infection. (Reprinted with permission from Lei C et al. [59] Copyright 2023 American Chemical Society).
Nutrients 15 01265 g001
Nutrients 15 01265 g002 550
Figure 2. The distribution and absorption of DIR-TBDNs in the liver, duodenum, and colon. (Reprinted with permission from Liu Y et al. [73] Copyright 2023 American Chemical Society).
Figure 2. The distribution and absorption of DIR-TBDNs in the liver, duodenum, and colon. (Reprinted with permission from Liu Y et al. [73] Copyright 2023 American Chemical Society).
Nutrients 15 01265 g002
Table
Table 1. GELNs susceptibility of bacteria.
Table 1. GELNs susceptibility of bacteria.
Reference DirectIndirect *
InhibitPromotedNo EffectInhibitPromoted
[48]Lactobacillus rhamnosus (LGG) x --
Lactobacillus reuteri (L. reuteri) x --
Lactobacillus murinus (L. murinus) x --
Bacillus fragilis (B. fragilis) xx
Escherichia coli (E. coli) xx
Ruminococcaceae sp. (TSD-27)x --
Listeria monocytogenes (L. monocytogenes)---x
[49]Porphyromonas gingivalis (P. gingivalis)x --
Fusobacterium nucleatum (F. nucleatum)x --
Prevotella intermedia (P. intermedia)x --
Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (A. actinomycetemcomitans)x --
Streptococcus gordonii (S. gordonii) x--
* Metabolic products from GELNs-treated LGG; (x) Effect; (-) No effect.
Table
Table 2. MDEVs have shown an impact on the gut microbiota of mice.
Table 2. MDEVs have shown an impact on the gut microbiota of mice.
Ref.SampleIsolationAnimalEVsConclusions
[86]Bovine MilkDifferential ultracentrifugationFemale and male
C57BL/6
3 weeks		Exosome and RNA-depleted (ERD) VS exosome
and RNA-sufficient (ERS) diets		Sex alone does not affect microbial communities.
7 weeks. Two unclassified families from
phylum Firmicutes were more abundant in ERD mice than in ERS mice.
15 weeks. one of the two unclassified families from the phylum of Firmicutes and another unclassified family from the phylum Tenericutes were more abundant in ERS mice compared with ERD mice
47 weeks. the family of Verrucomicrobiaceae was
more abundant in ERD mice compared with ERS mice, whereas Lachnospiraceae and two unclassified families from phyla Firmicutes and Tenericutes were more abundant in ERSmice than in ERD mice
[87]Raw milkChymosin or hydrochloric acid treatment combined with ultracentrifugation/ultrafiltrationSpecific-pathogen-free female C57BL/6
3 weeks		Low mEVs VS
Middle mEVs VS High mEVs
VS control PBS		Increase of Clostridiaceae, Ruminococcaceae Lachnospiraceae with EVs (with an increase of mEVs) and decrease in S24_7.
[88]Raw milk from Holstein cowsChymosin combined with ultracentrifugationSpecific-pathogen-free male C57BL/6
7–8 weeks		Control group VS DSS group VS DSS + mEVs-Low doseGenus level:
Depletion of Enterorhabdus and unclassified_Bacteroidia in the DSS group, but recovered in the mEVs group
Family level:
Increased Enterococcaceae and
Desulfovibrionales-unclassified Desulfovibrionaceae in the DSS group but unchanged in the mEVs group
[89]Bovine raw milkUltracentrifugationSpecific-pathogen-free female and male C57BL/6
6–8 weeks		High EVs VS
Middle EVs VS Low EVs VS
Control PBS		Female
Genus: increase Muribaculum, Turicibacter. Decrease Desulfovibrio, Marvinbryantia.
Male
Genus: increase Akkermansia. Decrease Desulfovibrio.
Phylum: increased Verrucomicrobia and Cyanobacteria
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

Manzaneque-López, M.C.; Sánchez-López, C.M.; Pérez-Bermúdez, P.; Soler, C.; Marcilla, A. Dietary-Derived Exosome-like Nanoparticles as Bacterial Modulators: Beyond MicroRNAs. Nutrients 2023, 15, 1265. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15051265

AMA Style

Manzaneque-López MC, Sánchez-López CM, Pérez-Bermúdez P, Soler C, Marcilla A. Dietary-Derived Exosome-like Nanoparticles as Bacterial Modulators: Beyond MicroRNAs. Nutrients. 2023; 15(5):1265. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15051265

Chicago/Turabian Style

Manzaneque-López, Mari Cruz, Christian M. Sánchez-López, Pedro Pérez-Bermúdez, Carla Soler, and Antonio Marcilla. 2023. "Dietary-Derived Exosome-like Nanoparticles as Bacterial Modulators: Beyond MicroRNAs" Nutrients 15, no. 5: 1265. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15051265

APA Style

Manzaneque-López, M. C., Sánchez-López, C. M., Pérez-Bermúdez, P., Soler, C., & Marcilla, A. (2023). Dietary-Derived Exosome-like Nanoparticles as Bacterial Modulators: Beyond MicroRNAs. Nutrients, 15(5), 1265. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15051265

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