Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
ToxinsToxins
  • Editor’s Choice
  • Review
  • Open Access

25 February 2021

Non-Digestible Oligosaccharides and Short Chain Fatty Acids as Therapeutic Targets against Enterotoxin-Producing Bacteria and Their Toxins

,
,
,
,
and
1
Division of Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 99, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands
2
Division of Medicinal Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 99, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
This article belongs to the Section Bacterial Toxins

Abstract

Enterotoxin-producing bacteria (EPB) have developed multiple mechanisms to disrupt gut homeostasis, and provoke various pathologies. A major part of bacterial cytotoxicity is attributed to the secretion of virulence factors, including enterotoxins. Depending on their structure and mode of action, enterotoxins intrude the intestinal epithelium causing long-term consequences such as hemorrhagic colitis. Multiple non-digestible oligosaccharides (NDOs), and short chain fatty acids (SCFA), as their metabolites produced by the gut microbiota, interact with enteropathogens and their toxins, which may result in the inhibition of the bacterial pathogenicity. NDOs characterized by diverse structural characteristics, block the pathogenicity of EPB either directly, by inhibiting bacterial adherence and growth, or biofilm formation or indirectly, by promoting gut microbiota. Apart from these abilities, NDOs and SCFA can interact with enterotoxins and reduce their cytotoxicity. These anti-virulent effects mostly rely on their ability to mimic the structure of toxin receptors and thus inhibiting toxin adherence to host cells. This review focuses on the strategies of EPB and related enterotoxins to impair host cell immunity, discusses the anti-pathogenic properties of NDOs and SCFA on EPB functions and provides insight into the potential use of NDOs and SCFA as effective agents to fight against enterotoxins.
Key Contribution:
This review describes the cytotoxicity pathways of both enterotoxin-producing bacteria (EPB) and enterotoxins and presents a detailed investigation of the structure of non-digestible oligosaccharides (NDOs). Furthermore, a comprehensive overview of the effects and mechanisms of action of NDOs and short chain fatty acids (SCFA) against EPB and their enterotoxins is given, to provide insight into new potential targets for the treatment of provoked corresponding bacterial infections.

1. Introduction

Currently, impairment of the gastrointestinal tract caused by the activity of bacterial enteropathogens is one of the biggest issues affecting human health and food safety [1]. Because of a growing concern on the relationship between toxigenic bacteria and intestinal associated diseases, research is required to define conditions and minimize the levels of their toxicity. Dietary carbohydrates, especially non-digestible oligosaccharides (NDOs) and short chain fatty acids (SCFA) as their metabolites produced by the gut microbiota, are known to reduce the toxic potential of bacterial enteropathogens in multiple stages of their pathogenicity [2]. Furthermore, the NDOs possess important physiological and physicochemical properties and serve as dietary fibers and prebiotics. Additionally, NDOs of various origins have been used extensively as immunostimulators, animal feed, agrochemicals, cosmetics and for drug delivery [3].
The human gut microbiota harbors a diverse community of commensal bacteria with a vast biosynthetic capacity. The role of the microbiota and its residents, is essential for the host, since it regulates multiple functions, including immune system development, nutrient processing and prevention of pathogen colonization [4]. The intestinal gut microbiota is directly exposed to the external environment, and therefore highly susceptible to pathogenic invasion and colonization [5]. Intestinal epithelial cells can be targeted by various pathogenic bacteria and consequently by their virulence factors, such as, toxins. More specifically, toxins secreted by bacteria that selectively interact with intestinal cells are called enterotoxins. Following different modes of actions, including pore formation, increase in permeability of the intestinal epithelium and alterations in cell homeostasis, enterotoxins can cause different gastrointestinal diseases such as pseudomembranous colitis [6]. Among the major pathogenic bacteria that secrete highly toxic proteins, enterotoxin-producing Bacillus cereus, Clostridium difficile, Clostridium perfringens, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Vibrio cholerae are the most prominent. Therefore, a clear understanding of key features of toxicogenic bacteria as well as their virulent products is required for the development and selection of optimal treatments.
To date, antibiotics are the most promising therapy for diseases related to enterotoxin-producing bacteria (EPB), however, exponential use and misuse of antibiotics have led to loss of their efficacy and antimicrobial resistance [7]. Several mechanisms of antibiotic-resistant pathogenic bacteria render these antimicrobials inactive and prolong their survival and pathogenicity by, for example, biofilm formation. Since many infections remain untreated, antibiotic resistance in bacterial pathogens is one of the great challenges in the developed and developing world with immense clinical and economic impacts [8]. Therefore, new strategies to resolve this escalating problem and diminish bacterial resistance-associated infections are urgently needed. Over recent decades, there is a growing interest in NDOs as anti-pathogenic agents, since NDOs do not only maintain gut homeostasis, but can also exert microbiota-independent effects on intestinal epithelial and immune cells with minimum side effects [9].
NDOs obtained from natural sources or manufactured via enzymatic or chemical synthesis, can get fermented by the beneficial bacteria to release metabolic substrates and energy [10]. Additionally, according to their key characteristics, such as, monosaccharide building blocks, degree of polymerization (DP), degree of acetylation (DA) and charge, they exhibit anti-pathogenic effects in multiple ways. Antimicrobial capabilities of NDOs are not limited against pathogenic bacteria, but also anti-virulent properties by blocking virulence factors, such as enterotoxins, have been described. Receptor mimicry mechanisms and stimulation or blocking of intracellular pathogenic mechanisms are some of the strategies that NDOs use to encounter such toxins. SCFA, as the end products of oligosaccharide fermentation induced by anaerobic intestinal microbiota, can induce similar anti-toxic effects, but through different mechanisms. Among diverse SCFA, acetate, propionate and butyrate have shown the most prominent anti- pathogenic effects [11].
This review aims to explore the current state of knowledge on the anti-virulence strategies of NDOs and SCFA against pathogenic bacteria and associated enterotoxins that target the intestinal epithelial layer. The review starts with describing structural characteristics and mode of action of the major virulent enterotoxins, including enterotoxins related to B. cereus, C. difficile and C. perfringens, cholera toxin (CT), heat-labile (LT) and heat-stable (ST) enterotoxins, Shiga toxins (Stxs) and staphylococcal enterotoxins (SEs). Thereafter, the main characteristics of the described NDOs are presented followed by a comprehensive overview of the anti-microbial functionalities of NDOs and SCFA against EPB and their enterotoxins. First, the anti-pathogenic properties of NDOs and SCFA against the EPB are specified “directly” by exerting anti-adhesive, anti-biofilm and anti-growth effects against EPB and “indirectly” by promoting the growth of beneficial bacteria that maintain gut homeostasis, mainly through SCFA production, which results in a reduction in final colonization and prefiltration of EPB. Second, the mechanisms of action (both direct and indirect) of NDOs and SCFA against each enterotoxin are discussed, which may open new avenues for NDOs and SCFA as effective agents to fight against enterotoxins.

3. Non-Digestible Oligosaccharides

NDOs are carbohydrate moieties composed of less than 20 monosaccharide building blocks linked via glycosidic bonds [88]. The number of monomeric sugars of every NDO structure determines the DP of each moiety, which subsequently may influence their anti-virulent behavior [89]. An overview of the basic structures of the NDOs that demonstrated a certain role in fighting against EPB and associated enterotoxins is depicted in Table 1. NDOs that exhibit anti-pathogenic/anti-virulence effects are alginate-oligosaccharides (AOS), chito-oligosaccharides (COS), fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS), galacto-oligosaccharides (GOS), human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs), isomalto-oligosaccharides (IMOS), mannan-oligosaccharides (MOS), pectic-oligosaccharides (POS) and xylo-oligosaccharides (XOS).
Table 1. Structural overview of different non-digestible oligosaccharides (NDOs).
AOS are derived from the enzymatic depolymerization or the acid hydrolysis of alginate, a biopolymer present in the cell walls of brown algae [90]. Alginate contains two monosaccharide building blocks, (1→4)–linked β-D-Mannuronic acid (ManA/M) and (1→4) α-L-Guluronic acid (GulA/G). These can be either homogenously or heterogeneously linked forming homodimers (GG/MM) or heterodimers (MG/GM) [90].
COS are degraded products of chitin and of chitosan, produced after enzymatic and chemical hydrolysis [91]. Chitin is present on crustacean or arthropodic shells and contains a high proportion of β-(1→4)-linked N-acetylglucosamine (GlcNAc), while chitosan is present in cell walls of specific fungi and is mainly composed of the β-(1→4)–linked D-glucosamine (GlcN) [92]. The average molecular weight (MW) of COS is less than 3900 Da, while the DP is less than 20 [91].
FOS, also known as oligofructose or oligo fructan, are naturally found in higher plants, like fruits and vegetables and can be either obtained by plant extraction or by enzymatic manu-facture [93]. The chemical structure of FOS is composed of a linear chain of fructose units linked by β-(2→1) glycosidic bonds, terminated by a glucose (Glc) unit linked with an α-(1→2) glycosidic bond. Structures of FOS with a DP of more than 10 are termed as inulin [94].
GOS can be synthesized from lactose by a β-galactosidase enzyme in a reaction known as transgalactosylation [95]. Monosaccharide building blocks included in the structure of GOS are galactose (Gal) units (DP = 2–6), linked by different bonds such as β-(1→3), β-(1→4) and β-(1→6) glycosidic linkages terminate in a β-(1→4) linked glucose unit [96].
Since FOS and GOS resemble the oligosaccharides that are naturally present in human breast milk, several types of infant formula are supplemented with those two oligosaccharides to obtain the advantages of a breast-fed microflora [97].
HMOs constitute a key component of human milk and represent a group of structural and biological diverse and complex indigestible sugars. According to the different monosaccharide moieties of their structure, HMOs can generally be divided into neutral oligosaccharides, containing occasionally fucose (Fuc) units (fucosylated HMOs) and acidic oligosaccharides (sialylated HMOs), containing sialic acid units. The basic monosaccharide components of HMOs are Gal, Glc, Fuc and GlcNAc, or sialic acid [98].
IMOS are naturally present at low concentrations in honey and in fermented foods like in soy sauce. Alternatively, IMOS can be manufactured by an enzymatic process utilizing starch as the substrate. The main monosaccharides components of IMOS are Glc units linked with α-D-(1→6) glycosidic bonds, with a DP range from 3 to 6 [93]. MOS can be chemically synthesized or obtained from the outer cell-wall membrane of bacteria, plants or yeast [99]. Isolated structures of MOS are mostly composed of (1→2), (1→4) and (1→6) D-mannose linkages [100].
POS are obtained by the depolymerization of pectin, a plant complex macromolecule made up of several monosaccharides [101]. Pectins are most importantly composed of a linear backbone of α-(1→4)-linked D-Galacturonic acid (GalA) units that can be partially acetylated and/or methylated [102]. The linear structures of pectins, termed as “smooth” homogalacturonic regions are made up by GalA and are occasionally interrupted by rhamnose residues called “hairy” rhamnogalacturonic regions [102].
XOS are naturally found in bamboo shoots, fruits, vegetables, milk and honey and are formed by 2 to 10 xylose molecules, linked by β-(1→4) glyocosidic bonds [103]. Additionally, XOS can be produced chemically by direct enzymatic hydrolysis of xylan [104].
Structural characteristics of the mentioned NDOs play a crucial role in their mechanism of action against EPB and enterotoxins, as will be discussed in the next paragraph.

4. Different Effects of NDOs and SCFA against Enterotoxins and Enterotoxin-Producing Bacteria

4.1. The Effects of NDOs and SCFA against Enterotoxin-Producing Bacteria

NDOs are proven to have crucial roles in protecting the body from pathogenic bacteria. They play this role via at least two different pathways inducing both direct and indirect defenses against these pathogens. First, NDOs can also encounter toxigenic attacks through their direct interaction with EPB inducing anti-adhesive, anti-biofilm and anti-growth effects. Their anti-adhesive capability is based on the similarity of their carbohydrate backbone with the structure of EPB receptors on host cells. Furthermore, NDOs can disrupt or inhibit the formation of biofilms, an extracellular polymeric sub-stance (EPS) matrix that pathogenic bacteria develop as a protective mechanism [105]. Interestingly, NDOs can also exert antibacterial effects that directly result in growth inhibition of pathogenic bacteria, including enterotoxin-producing microorganisms [106]. Second, NDOs can modulate the microbiota balance by encouraging the growth of beneficial bacteria in the gut lumen. Several studies proved that this modulation will not only result in an increase in SCFA production, but also in a decrease in the essential sources and space that pathogenic bacteria use to proliferate inside the intestinal lumen. This indirect effect of NDOs on the proliferation of EPB was investigated in several studies, which are depicted in Table 2. Concerning the indirect mode of action, oligosaccharide substrates get fermented by the potential beneficial bacteria species, resulting in an increased production of SCFA [2]. SCFA are volatile fatty acids produced in the large bowel, structurally characterized by fewer than six carbons, existing both in straight and branched-chain versions. After being produced, SCFA are absorbed and used in various biosynthetic pathways by the host, constituting an energy source [107]. Oligosaccharide-induced microbiome composition can benefit host health and protect against EPB by microbiota-dependent mechanisms.
Table 2. Indirect effects of NDOs on enterotoxin-producing bacteria.

4.1.1. Direct Mechanisms of Action of NDOs against EPB

Various bacteria found in the intestinal tract are able to interact with the digestive mucosa and produce virulence factors responsible for gastrointestinal or foodborne diseases. Among the diverse virulence factors, enterotoxins represent the most invasive way to affect target cells. One category of toxigenic bacteria that produce enterotoxins are colonizing bacteria (e.g., E. coli, V. cholerae) whose adherent factors (e.g., pili, fimbriae) permit the evasion of inhibitory microflora. The second category are bacteria (e.g., B. cereus, S. aureus) that can grow and secrete their toxins in different environments, such as, food, leading to the digestion of pre-formed toxins that cause food intoxication. Finally, a third class of toxigenic bacteria (e.g., C. difficile, C. perfringens) can enter the digestive tract and grow in the intestinal lumen under certain conditions such as antibiotic treatment, to overcome the inhibitory effects of resident microflora [6]. Even if enterotoxins constitute one of the major therapeutic targets against EPB, several additional targets (e.g., adherence, biofilm formation) have also been investigated. NDOs have shown promising therapeutic potentials through their interaction with EPB. Direct anti-pathogenic capabilities of NDOs against EPB target both bacterial and enterotoxin toxicity pathways and mostly rely on the structural similarity of free NDOs with the carbohydrate patterns presented on the host cell surface [106]. A concise overview of the direct effects of NDOs against EPB is depicted in Table 3.
Table 3. Direct effects of NDOs on enterotoxin-producing bacteria.
E. coli 
A great number of NDOs can exhibit antibacterial effects against different pathogenic strains of E. coli.
The anti-adhesive capabilities of NDOs, such as GOS are mostly related to molecular mimicry mechanisms in which free oligosaccharides resemble the structure of host cells carbohydrate based receptors [127]. The way that E. coli binds to epithelial cells mostly relies on the adhesins found on the fimbriae appendage of its structure. Different fractions of HMOs, including neutral, fucosylated and acidic fractions are known to inhibit adhesion of E. coli to epithelial cells. Fractions of neutral HMOs inhibit the adherence of an E. coli strain which is P-fimbriated and specifically recognizes galabiose or galactose structures on host cell surface [114]. Fucosylated HMOs, a subcategory of neutral HMOs decorated by fucosyl residues, inhibit Enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC) adhesion on HEP-2 monolayers [115]. However, the great abundance of different molecular structures incorporated in HMOs mixtures makes it difficult to specify the effectiveness of a specific saccharide. Negatively charged sialylated HMOs can interact with oppositely charged elements on the epithelial cell exterior, showing inhibitory potential towards pathogenic species [116]. However, acidic HMOs can partially inhibit P and CFA fimbriae-expressing E. coli as the P-fimbrial lectin lacks affinity for sialylated oligosaccharides [114].
Anti-adhesive effects against E. coli are also exhibited by POS following a P-fimbriae-mediated inhibition mechanism [131]. However, although the POS structure lacks the exact α-Gal-(1-4)-β-Gal termini that P-fimbriated E. coli utilizes to adhere to epithelial cells, receptor mimicry is likely involved, but additional mechanisms remain unknown [140]. Furthermore, MOS can inhibit E. coli adherence to epithelial cells as the FimH domain of type I fimbriae, commonly found in E. coli, recognizes mannose patterns on host cells in order to be adhered. MOS can bind to the FimH domain and compete with the mannose patterns, inhibiting pathogenic adhesion through a receptor-mimicking function [129]. Finally, COS was also found to inhibit EPEC adhesion, while it did not exert the same capability against Verocytotoxin-producing E. coli (VTEC), showing target specificity [122]. Even if the reason for strain selectivity is currently undetermined, the anti-adhesive effect is presumably again a result of molecular mimicry, while the GlcNAc moiety on the cell surface receptor is recognized by the GafD adhesin of the G fimbriae containing E. coli strain and simultaneously constitutes one of the basic compartments of COS structure [122].
In addition to anti-adhesive capabilities of NDOs, other anti-pathogenic effects against E. coli have also been identified including bacterial cell membrane disruption, biofilm inhibition and radical scavenging. A great number of studies have shown that COS act as antibacterial agents via the inhibition of E. coli growth [123,124] The positively charged amino groups of chito-oligomers can bind to the negatively charged O-specific antigenic units of the E. coli, thereby blocking the nutrient flow leading to bacterial death due to nutrient depletion [126]. Additionally, AOS block pathogenic swarming and motility in E. coli, two substantial mediators for biofilm formulation [120]. POS can inhibit E. coli growth by scavenging free radicals like HO•, reacting with them and producing carbon dioxide radical anion (CO2). However, E. coli is inhibited less significantly by POS in comparison with S. aureus [130].
V. cholerea 
NDOs exhibit anti-adhesive and antibacterial effects against pathogenic V. cholerea. Among several NDOs, neutral high-molecular weight (HMW) HMOs and COS have shown such anti-pathogenic potential against V. cholerea, following receptor mimicking and membrane disruption mechanisms [116,134]. In order to achieve colonization in the small intestine, V. cholerea expresses the N-acetylglucosamine-binding protein A (GbpA), a nonspecific adhesin that facilitates attachment to the intestinal epithelium by specific binding to GlcNAc oligosaccharides [141]. GlcNac consists of a structural component of glycoproteins and glycolipids that are located on the IECs and on mucus. Except the abundance of GlcNaC on cellular moieties, it also constitutes a basic component of COS and HMOs [56]. Therefore, NDOs that include GlcNAc in their structure can mimic host cell receptors and compete for their binding with GbpA. Through a receptor-mimicry mechanism, the HMW fraction of HMOs was shown to inhibit the adhesion of V. cholerae to Caco-2 cells, thereby reducing its pathogenicity [116].
Furthermore, the antibacterial potentials of COS against pathogenic bacteria were related to the increased solubility and their cationic nature. The polycationic nature of COS enables them to adhere to Gram-negative bacteria, such as V. cholerae, creating a cationic oligosaccharide layer around them [142]. As it is adhered to the bacterial cell surface after prolonged exposure, COS can promote the leakage of proteinaceous and other intracellular constituents, resulting in cell swelling, cell lysis and inhibition of bacterial growth [143]. Consequently, this mechanism is an estimated explanation for the bactericidal activity of COS and NAc-COS against V. cholerae, possibly due to the lower MW and the higher solubility of chito-oligomers in comparison with the polymeric chitosan moieties [134].
B. cereus 
Among different antibacterial properties of NDOs, the anti-pathogenic effects of COS prevail against B. cereus. COS have shown to inhibit microbial cells either by interfering with the cell surface of bacteria or by blocking the transcription of RNA from DNA [134]. The cationic nature of chito-oligomers due to the positively charged NH3+ groups, enable them to bind with the peptidoglycan layers of Gram-positive bacteria, such as B. cereus, a Gram-positive bacterium. The cell wall of B. cereus is composed of peptidoglycan layers to which polycationic moieties (positively charged NH3+ groups) of chito-oligomers can bind. The binding that occurs leads to cell wall disruption, exposure of cell membrane to osmotic shock and secretion of intracellular substances that ultimately result in growth inhibition of Gram-positive bacteria, such as B. cereus [126].
S. aureus 
Multiple NDOs have shown antibacterial activities against S. aureus, a Gram-positive bacterium that is characterized by its biofilm formation and multi-drug resistance [144]. In order to encounter S. aureus escape mechanisms, the ability of COS to potentiate conventional antibiotics was investigated. Indeed, results have shown that COS enhanced the activity of several antibiotics possibly through the lysis of the bacterial cell wall [145]. Generally, anti-pathogenic features of COS are associated with a number of factors, including MW and degree of deacetylation (DD) [146]. COS with a MW less than 5000 can penetrate through the bacterial membrane in order to bind to bacterial DNA and inhibit RNA synthesis [147]. Bearing a positive charge, COS are also able to create an impermeable cationic oligosaccharide layer around the surface of S. aureus bacteria, thereby preventing the diffusion of metal ions and other nutrients, elements that are essential for bacterial proliferation, across the bacterial membrane [136].
Plant-based oligosaccharides, like POS, can also inhibit the growth and the adhesion of S. aureus. Characterized by redox activity, POS act as antioxidants, since they can efficiently scavenge free radicals. To eliminate pathological effects induced by free radicals such as HO•, POS react with HO• and produce the carbon dioxide radical anion (CO2), which is hypothesized to inhibit S. aureus [130]. However, since POS are characterized by great versatility, the antibacterial potential of CO2 needs to be further elucidated. Moreover, anti-adhesive effects of POS are mostly attributed to the high uronic acid content of their structure that results in higher ionic interactions among POS and pathogenic bacteria. The anti-adhesive mechanism of POS, derived from panax ginseng, was proposed against pathogenic Gram-positive bacteria, including S. aureus [137]. However, similar anti-adhesive effects were not exerted against beneficial and commensal bacteria, indicating that POS act in a strain-dependent manner.
Finally, HMOs and XOS are able to inhibit the growth of S. aureus by exhibiting anti-biofilm activity. Indeed, HMOs isolates from several donors significantly reduced biofilm production of MRSA, while the reductions ranged from 30 to 60% in comparison to the control [105]. Moreover, XOS demonstrated antibacterial activity against S. aureus, not only by inhibiting biofilm formation, but also by affecting cell membrane permeability and obstructing Ca2+-Mg2+- ATPase activity on the cytomembrane of S. aureus [138].
Clostridium spp.
Studies concerning the direct anti-pathogenic functionalities of NDOs against Clostridium spp. are very limited. To date, only FOS have been found to exert direct antimicrobial effects against C. difficile. More specifically, through an in vitro study FOS exhibited anti-adhesion potential towards several C. difficile strains on human epithelial cells [139]. Although the underlying mechanism of these anti-adhesive properties was not investigated, it was speculated that FOS possibly affect the surface proteins and adhesins of the bacteria. Additionally, 8% FOS was found to significantly reduce C. difficile biofilm formation [139]. The anti-biofilm effect of FOS may be correlated with its anti-adhesive effect since adhesion constitutes the primary step of colonization and biofilm formation.
NDOs can also fight indirectly against EPB, however since this is not the focus of the review, the indirect mechanisms will be shortly discussed in the next paragraph.

4.1.2. Indirect Mechanisms of Action of NDOs and SCFA against EPB

NDOs and SCFA can maintain gut homeostasis through indirect mechanisms based on microbiota-dependent effects, such as antimicrobial activity of beneficial bacteria, as well as microbiota-independent effects related to barrier-protecting and immune-related properties. Initially, NDOs and SCFA, as their metabolites, can stimulate the growth of beneficial bacteria, which subsequently interfere with the maintenance of gut homeostasis and finally decrease the pathogenic effect of EBP. The most abundant beneficial bacteria are Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus species, while the major byproducts of oligosaccharide fermentation incorporated in the family of SCFA, are acetate (mainly produced by bifidobacteria), propionate (produced by propionibacteria and Bacteroidetes) and butyrate (mainly produced by Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae) [148]. The defense role of the gut microbiota against EPB is based on several mechanisms, such as, antimicrobial activity and host immunity regulation induced by both beneficial bacteria and SCFA. Furthermore, gut microbiota acts against EPB by improving the intestinal barrier function of host cells and by reducing the luminal colonic pH due to the production of SCFA. Beyond the regulation of intestinal immunity and barrier function through microbiota-dependent effects, NDOs can promote gut immunity by their direct effects on specific immune and intestinal epithelial cells and also improve the intestinal barrier function by affecting epithelial tight junction proteins and goblet cell function. Since the main focus of this review is based on the direct mechanisms of action of NDOs and SCFA against enterotoxins and EPB, the indirect mechanisms of action of NDOs and SCFA against EPB will be shortly discussed in this review.
Antimicrobial Activity of Beneficial Bacteria
NDOs promote the growth of beneficial bacteria, such as, bifidobacteria or lactobacilli, which in turn exert anti-pathogenic capabilities. Beneficial bacteria can also interfere with the adhesion of bacterial pathogens and exert antimicrobial activity by inhibiting their growth [149]. FOS and inulin enhanced the antimicrobial activities of Lactobacillus spp. against pathogenic S. aureus and E. coli, an effect mostly related to the function of SCFA (acetate, propionate, isobutyric acid and butyrate) [110]. An increase in the growth of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium spp. was also induced by XOS that additionally suppressed the growth of C. perfringens. Moreover, FOS supplementation in combination with five different probiotics provoked growth inhibition of E. coli and C. difficile, although no mechanism was determined [108]. Finally, stimulation of different Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp. growth by GOS and IMOS conferred protection against C. difficile infected mice [113].
Immunomodulation Activity
NDOs can exhibit anti-inflammatory effects that are likely to be driven by beneficial gut bacteria and their metabolites. Indeed, stimulation of Bifidobacterium growth by GOS, diminished the incidence of colitis leading to enhanced NK cell function and IL-15 production [150]. Several beneficial bacteria such as different Bifidobacterium spp. were also found to increase the levels of IgA-producing cells in the lamina propria, therefore stimulating the secretion of sIgA into the luminal mucus layers and preventing the colonization of bacteria in the epithelium [151]. Furthermore, via a cascade of signaling events, beneficial bacteria can promote the secretion and the production of anti-inflammatory cytokines, such as, IL-10 and TGFβ by T-regulatory cells [152]. Additionally, FOS can reduce intestinal inflammation and colitis incidences, mediated by the induced growth of intestinal lactic acid bacteria in the colon [153].
In addition to the regulation of gut immunity through microbiota-dependent effects, NDOs can promote intestinal immunity by their direct effects on specific immune cells and intestinal epithelial cells. Indeed, several in vitro studies demonstrated the effects of NDOs on cytokine and chemokine production and release by different intestinal epithelial cell lines exposed to inflammatory triggers. For example, 2′-fucosyllactose inhibited the induction of IL-8 caused by different strains of E. coli in T84 cells [154], while GOS prevented the secretion of IL-8 in Caco-2 cells [155]. Direct effects of NDOs on immune and epithelial cells are extensively reviewed by Yang et al. and Jeurink et al. [156,157].
Improvement of Intestinal Barrier Function
The disruption of epithelial barrier integrity constitutes one of the major pathological effects of EPB, and different studies describe that NDOs may substantially contribute to the protection of the epithelial barrier. Several NDOs improve intestinal epithelial barrier integrity by stimulating the growth of beneficial bacteria [158]. Multiprotein complexes, termed as tight junctions (TJ), tightly connect epithelial cells to their neighbors in order to control paracellular permeability and transepithelial transport [159]. FOS supplementation in mice decreased intestinal permeability and enhanced TJ integrity by promoting the growth of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium spp. [160]. A potential cause underlying this effect is the control of intestinotrophic hormone glucagon-like peptide 2 production, a key element in the regulation of intestinal barrier secreted by endocrine L cells [160]. Furthermore, in rats, fructans stimulated mucosa-associated bifidobacteria which was associated with increased mucus layer and improved mucosal architecture. Consequently, the increase in villus height and crypt depth, in addition to alterations in mucin composition resulted in gut mucosal barrier stabilization [161].
Additionally, SCFA can also contribute to the amelioration of the intestinal barrier. Butyrate is the preferential source of energy for colonic epithelial cells and the most potent acid among the SCFA [162]. Improvement of intestinal epithelial barrier by butyrate likely relies on the expression of TJ proteins [163]. Butyrate can accelerate the assembly of TJ by reorganizing TJ molecules, such as, ZO-1 and occludin, an effect mediated by the activation of AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) [163]. In addition, SCFA enhance oxygen consumption by IECs resulting in a reduction in oxygen tension, leading to the stabilization of hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF). Indeed, butyrate increased barrier function and attenuated the infection of C. difficile infected mice through the stabilization of HIF-1 [164]. SCFA can also exert intestinal protective mechanisms to the host by altering mucus production and secretion [165]. Mucins are colonic mucous glycoproteins that promote a protective effect against toxic agents through the formation of a mucus layer that acts as physical barrier for the host. SCFA and especially, propionate and butyrate, can reinforce the mucus layer by stimulating mucin2 (MUC2) gene expression, which is the most prominent mucin on the intestinal mucosa surface [166]. The mechanisms that enable butyrate to be involved in MUC2 regulation are mediated via an active region (AP-1) within the MUC2 promotor and histone modifications [166].
In addition to the microbiota-dependent mechanisms for the improvement of the intestinal barrier, several studies have described the direct effects of NDOs on intestinal barrier function. 2′-fucosyllactose and lacto-N-neotetraose promoted enhanced barrier function by increasing the transepithelial resistance in Caco-2Bbe cells [167]. GOS facilitated the tight junction assembly and stabilized the expression and the cellular distribution of the tight junction protein, claudin-3 [155]. Additionally, GOS enhanced mucosal barrier function via the direct stimulation of goblet cells through the up-regulation of gene expression levels of secretory products and Golgi-sulfotransferases in a goblet cell line [168]. Different NDOs have a protective role on intestinal barrier function by differentially affecting epithelial tight junction proteins and goblet cell function, which has been reviewed previously [156].
Acidic Environment
SCFA production can lower the pH of the intraluminal space, creating an acidic environment that favors the growth of bifidogenic bacteria. In animal studies, co-administration of GOS with Bifidobacterium breve increased the anti-infectious activity against methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), due to a high acetic acid production [112]. Additionally, low intestinal pH and high concentration of acetic acid inhibited Stx production in STEC-infected mice suggesting that such conditions create an unfavorable environment for bacterial pathogens [169]. E. coli was also unable to survive inside the acidic environment in FOS- and XOS-fermented cultures leading to growth inhibition [111]. Therefore, the more acidic environment created by SCFA constitutes an unfavorable space for pathogenic bacteria and subsequently inhibits their colonization.

4.2. The Effects of NDOs and SCFA against Bacterial Enterotoxins

The cytotoxicity of enterotoxins has been shown to be highly attenuated by the activity of NDOs and SCFA. A summary of their protective effects (both direct and indirect) against bacterial enterotoxins related to human diseases is provided in Table 4. Concerning NDOs, the majority of the mechanisms underlying their anti-virulent behavior rely on receptor mimicry mechanisms and their interference in endocytic pathways, such as the activation of the AMPK protein or the reduction in rRNA depurination. SCFA can also function against enterotoxins through several mechanisms, including metabolic integration, microbiota regulation, inhibition of fluid secretion, and maintenance of intestinal epithelial integrity. The absorption of SCFA in colonic epithelial cells, enable them to influence both extracellular and intracellular host compartments that might subsequently modulate the pathways activated by enterotoxins. However, to date, not all enterotoxins are shown to be inhibited by NDOs and SCFA.
Table 4. Effects of NDOs and short chain fatty acids (SCFA) against bacterial enterotoxins.

4.2.1. B. cereus Enterotoxins

Characterized by their ability to form pores in epithelial cells, leading to fluid release and necrosis, B. cereus enterotoxins Hbl, Nhe and CytK do not necessarily need cellular receptors to express their pathogenicity. NDOs with high MW are incapable of crossing the cellular membrane, therefore their role is limited to the extracellular domains of host cells. This further justifies why the majority of therapeutic mechanisms of high MW NDOs focus on outer membrane cellular receptors. To date, no oligosaccharide treatment has been found against B. cereus-related enterotoxins, which is most probably due to the lack of cellular receptors and subsequently to the lack of receptor mimicry mechanism. Therapeutic activity against B. cereus enterotoxins has not been found either by SCFA. However, since SCFA have been proven to maintain fluid secretion [170], they can probably enhance the extensive influx of Ca2+, Na+ and efflux of K+ caused by B. cereus enterotoxins.

4.2.2. Cholera Toxin (CT)

NDOs against CT
Several mechanisms contribute to the anti-virulence activity of NDOs against CT. First, COS can suppress intestinal fluid secretion, a key consequence underlying secretory diarrhea induced by CT [171]. Indeed, luminal exposure to COS has been found to reduce intestinal fluid secretion in a mouse model by 30%, a reduction that relies on the activation of AMPK. AMPK is a heterotrimeric protein that apart from its role as a cellular energy conserver, can also mediate epithelial functions, such as tight junction assembly and ion transport (CFTR Cl channel). COS of low MW (5000 Da) were found to interact with calcium-sensing receptor (CaSR), a Gq-coupled receptor linked to phospholipase C (PLC) located in IEC. Consequently, through a CaSR-PLC-IP3-receptor channel-dependent pathway, COS induce Ca2+ secretion from ER and mitochondria, resulting in AMPK activation [171]. Therefore, activated AMPK reduces CT-induced intestinal hypersecretion of chloride, highlighting the substantial anti-diarrheal activity of COS. Since overstimulation of fluid secretion is the consequence of multiple enterotoxins, COS might also be a potential therapy fighting against the adverse effects of other enterotoxins.
The second mechanism arises from direct interaction of NDOs with CT by competing with the GM1 receptor. GM1, the native receptor of CT, is a glycolipid receptor containing a sialylated carbohydrate structure. It is well known that galactose and N-acetylneuraminic acid have a substantial role in the majority of interactions between the receptor and the toxin, since removal of one of these residues confers loss of binding. Such components are also found in the structure of sialylated-oligosaccharides (SOS). In comparison with single monosaccharides, such as lactose, galactose and sialic acid that have been found to be ineffective inhibitors of CT-GM1 binding, the biantennary nature of the glycan chains in SOS showed increased potency for CT-GM1 inhibition [172]. Additionally, 3′-sialyllactose, a predominant sialylated substance in human milk, which partially has the same sequence of the carbohydrate portion of GM1, was also found to behave as a receptor analogue for CT [173]. In addition to acidic HMOs, GOS also contain saccharide residues (e.g., galactosyl residues) that pre-sent similarities with the GM1 structure and therefore showed inhibitory activity against CT binding to the GM1 receptor [174].
Rather than GM1, which is widely the sole receptor for CT intoxication, fucosylated glycan epitopes on glycoproteins were also found to facilitate cell surface binding and endocytic uptake of CT [175]. Although, interaction of the CT binding subunit (CTB) with fucosylated glycans has a much lower affinity than the CTB-GM1 interaction, CTB binding studies demonstrated that low-affinity ligands can be recognized by CTB even in the presence of a much higher affinity ligand. Therefore, based on the functional significance of fucose recognition by CTB, fucosylated molecules can competitively interfere with CTB binding to intestinal epithelial cell lines and primary cells, to prevent CT uptake. Indeed, 2′-FL, a fraction identified also in HMOs mixtures, was shown to inhibit CTB binding to GM1 [176]. The appearance of additional binding sites is further justified by a study in which 20 of the most abundant HMOs were tested against CT and despite their affinity, the binding site was found to be distinct from the one of the native receptor binding sites on CT [177]. Dendrimers, as obtained by synthetic conjugation of GM1-oligosaccharides, yielded very potent inhibitors of CTB with picomolar potencies [178] as evaluated by binding studies using intestinal organoids [179]. Additionally, simplified polymeric ligands were shown to be very potent, even when incorporating fucose derivatives [180,181].
SCFA against CT
Cytotoxic consequences of CT such as watery diarrhea, are directly linked with low fluid absorption and hypersecretion of electrolytes and water in the intestinal lumen. SCFA can enhance the impairment of colonic functions occurring during CT pathogenicity by stimulating colonic absorption and reducing net fluid loss. Even if fluid secretion stimulated by CT mostly occurs from the small intestine, the colon can also bind with CT and secrete fluid and electrolytes after exposure to purified CT. An in vivo study showed that SCFA (acetate, propionate, butyrate) can significantly reduce the secretion of water and electrolytes (Na+, K+, Cl) in the colon of a CT-induced rabbit model. The anti-secretory behavior of SCFA is likely a result of their pro-absorptive effects on Na+ and Cl transport. Interestingly, similar inhibitory effects of SCFA were not observed in the case of HCO3 secretion [182].

4.2.3. C. difficile Enterotoxins

NDOs against C. difficile Toxin A (TcdA) and Toxin B (TcdB)
Two substantial oligosaccharides, HMOs and FOS, show anti-virulent activity against C. difficile large toxins, TcdA and TcdB. Both enterotoxins incorporate two distinct functional regions in their structure, i.e., the CROPs and the region N-terminally adjacent to the CROPs, which independently serve as receptor-binding domains. Multiple receptors can bind TcdA and TcdB whereas glycans were identified as high-affinity binding structures for TcdA and specific protein receptors were identified for TcdB. However, both of them have carbohydrate-binding sites that bind to HMOs [183]. Concerning TcdA, a variety of glycans, including the linear B type 2 trisaccharide α-Gal-(1,3)-β-Gal-(1,4)-β-GlcNAc, can bind either to TcdA or to a part of the TcdA CROPs [184]. Therefore, HMOs that present structural similarities with the cellular receptors, can inhibit toxin binding. Such structures were found to be LNFPV and LNnH, two HMO structures, which demonstrated high binding affinity to TcdA, thereby obstructing toxin binding to its native receptor [185]. Interestingly, molecular docking analysis of the two aforementioned compounds showed stronger binding to the TcdA binding site than that of α-Gal-(1,3)-β-Gal-(1,4)-β-GlcNAc, which further potentiates the role of HMOs in in-hibiting toxin binding [185].
Additionally, FOS have protective effects against C. difficile infections by inhibiting the expression of toxin-related genes. FOS decreased the gene copy numbers of the Clostridium cluster XI and of the C. difficile toxin B (TcdB) in the fecal microbiota of rats in an inflammatory bowel disease model, correlating with the reduction in chronic intestinal inflammation [186] and nosocomial diarrhea. The ability of FOS to exert anti-inflammatory effects possibly relies on the formation of SCFA, although further research is needed.
SCFA against C. difficile Toxin A (TcdA) and Toxin B (TcdB)
Multiple SCFA have been shown to efficiently reduce cytotoxicity of C. difficile enterotoxins, predominately via indirect pathways. Anti-pathogenic mechanisms of increased SCFA concentrations mostly rely on their ability to create an acidic luminal environment. Using in vitro experiments, the relationship between C. difficile enterotoxins’ production with different concentrations of SCFA (acetate, propionate, butyrate) and pH levels was investigated. Results pointed out inhibitory effects of SCFA on the growth and the production of C. difficile enterotoxins, while beneficial effects were related to elevated SCFA concentration and lower pH levels [187]. In addition, SCFA, and especially butyrate, exhibits protective effects against CDI by restoring the damage of IECs induced by C. difficile enterotoxins. A recent study was conducted to examine the mode of action of butyrate against CDI and revealed that even if no effects on bacterial colonization or C. difficile enterotoxin production was observed, butyrate managed to attenuate intestinal inflammation and improved the intestinal barrier function in CD-infected mice by acting directly on IECs. The reduction in intestinal epithelial permeability induced by butyrate was achieved via an HIF-1a-dependent mechanism. Administration of butyrate in mice infected with C. difficile demonstrated elevated levels of Hif1a expression and stability that is a relevant effect for intestinal barrier integrity. Through the stabilization of HIF-1, damage of IECs caused by C. difficile toxins, was repaired thereby preventing the local inflammatory response and systemic implications [164]. In comparison with the large clostridial enterotoxins (TcdA, TcdB), so far, no effect has been reported by NDOs and SCFA against the CDT enterotoxin produced by C. difficile.

4.2.4. C. perfringens Enterotoxins

The binding of the two human related C. perfringens enterotoxins, CPE and CPB, to intestinal epithelial cells relies on the presence of tight and gap junctions. CPE binds strongly to claudin-3, -4 cellular receptors [188], while CPB binds to pannexin receptor (P2X7) that belongs to gap junction proteins, proteins that are responsible for intracellular communication [21]. Dietary components, such as NDOs and their metabolites are known to regulate intestinal barrier function by changing the expression and the distribution of junction proteins [155,189]. However, no interaction between these specific receptors and NDOs and SCFA has been identified so far.
On the other hand, SCFA have shown potential against CPE by inhibiting the spore formation stage. Unlike other enterotoxins that are produced and released during the replicative cycle of bacteria, CPE is induced during sporulation. SCFA can inhibit spore formation and subsequently enterotoxin production, thereby preventing associated undesirable consequences, such as antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Indeed, a study has shown that four SCFA (acetate, isobutyrate, isovalerate, succinate) produced by Bacteroides fragilis can lower the amount of heat-resistant spores or even reduce the number of viable cells as observed for isobutyrate [190]. Therefore, fermentation products of Bacteroides spp. can inhibit sporulation of C. perfringens and thus prevent CPE production.

4.2.5. Heat-Labile (LT) and Heat-Stable (ST) Enterotoxins

NDOs against LT and ST Enterotoxins
NDOs have shown anti-pathogenic functionalities against LT and ST enterotoxins, which are both produced by virulent E. coli strains. The protective role of HMOs and specifically of fucosylated oligosaccharides against ST enterotoxins has been identified by using a suckling mouse model [191]. Additional studies that examine structurally similar HMOs proved similar ef-fects against STa in T84 intestinal cells [192]. The mechanism that potentially underlies this effect relies on the allosteric binding of HMOs to the STa receptor. Even if predominately NDOs bind directly to enterotoxins in order to inhibit their action, in the case of STa, fucosylated oligosaccharides bind preferentially to the STa receptor. Cytotoxicity of STa begins with the binding to GC-C that subsequently leads to the activation of the GC-C intracellular catalytic domain. Fucosylated fractions of human milk were found to block activation of human GC by binding allosterically to GC-C and therefore prevent STa infection [192].
HMOs can also bind directly to LT although at a distinct position of the native LT receptor (GM1). However, an evidence of competitive binding between GM1 and two HMOs (2′-fucosyllactose and lacto-N-fucopentaose I) gives the perspective of a receptor mimicry mechanism [177]. Besides the direct effect of HMOs on LT, FOS can also interfere with the cytotoxicity of LT. By acting synergistically with Lactobacillus rhamnosus, FOS through an in vitro study were found to significantly inactivate ETEC by decreasing LT production [193]. The reduction in the amount of enterotoxin is possibly an indirect effect of FOS that derives from the production of SCFA metabolites.
SCFA against LT Enterotoxin
SCFA can disturb the production of LT, however no mechanism has been determined so far. A study investigating the effect of SCFA on the production of LT enterotoxin showed that the addition of SCFA with different carbon chain length can significantly reduce or abolish LT production. In addition to the three main products of oligosaccharide fermentation, acetic (C-2), propionic (C-3) and butyric acid (C-4), three more SCFA presented inhibitory effects against LT, including n-valeric (C-5), n-caproic (C-6) and n-heptylic acids (C-7). The effectiveness of SCFA at a concentration of 2 mg/mL was proportional to the elongation of carbon chain length from C-2 to C-7. Eventually, n-heptylic acid (C-7) showed the most intense inhibition of LT production, while longer chain fatty acids tested (C-8 to C-10), inversely recovered the LT levels [194]. Since production of LT is essential for the induction of diarrhea, by reducing the LT production, diarrheal consequences can be prevented.

4.2.6. Shiga Toxins (Stxs)

NDOs against Stxs
Specific NDOs such as POS and HMOs, have the capability to reduce Stx cytotoxicity. POS derived from the hydrolysis of citrus and apple pectin were found to completely protect human colonic HT29 cells from the toxic effects of Stx1 and Stx2 [195]. The structure of POS is mostly composed of a GalA-rich backbone, a carbohydrate moiety similar, but distinct from the structure of the Gb3 receptor, thereby receptor mimicry may not be involved [140]. However, POS can minimize Stx cytotoxicity by reducing rRNA depurination of host cells, an effect caused by the enzymatically active Stx A1 fragment that subsequently leads to protein synthesis inhibition [196]. Indeed, reduction in rRNA depurination induced by POS was proved through a study that was based on a TaqMan probe-based RT-qPCR analysis [140]. This further suggests that POS might block the entry of Stx into cells.
In addition to the relationship of Stxs with POS, a variety of HMOs have been shown to bind with several enterotoxins, including Stxs [177]. Such potential of binding was further investigated and the measured binding affinities to HMOs were found to be lower in comparison with the affinity of Stxs to the Gb3 analogue, Pk trisaccharide. However, apparent association constants Ka,app for HMOs binding to Stx, was found to be similar to many biologically relevant carbohydrate–protein interactions, therefore HMOs could compete with such monovalent interactions. Surprisingly, even if HMOs manage to bind efficiently with Stxs, competitive assays proved that the specific binding occurred at a distinct position rather than at the Gb3 binding site [177]. Given these results, receptor binding inhibition seems unlikely to occur, therefore additional inhibitory mechanisms might be involved and further research on the anti-pathogenic effects of HMOs against Stxs should be established.
SCFA against Stxs
Several investigations of SCFA have also revealed a wide range of anti-pathogenic functionalities against Stxs. Acetic acid and lactic acid, also produced by beneficial gut bacteria, such as, lactic acid bacteria, have shown to decrease stx2 gene expression. The reduction in stx2 gene expression leads to diminished enterotoxin-associated cytotoxicity that is likely a consequence of low pH conditions as a result of organic acid production [169,197]. Additionally, acetate promotes anti-virulence activity against E. coli 0157 by inhibiting the translocation of Stx across the colonic epithelial monolayer [198]. A study has shown that the protective role of certain bifidobacteria against pathogenic E. coli 0157 relied on high production of acetate. Acetate induces the expression of three specific genes, Apoe, C3 and Pla2g2a, that have been found to mediate cellular energy metabolism and anti-inflammatory responses in the colonic epithelium. Moreover, increased production of acetate prevented the reduction in the transepithelial electrical resistance caused by an E. coli 0157 infection, thereby inhibiting Stx translocation across the colonic epithelium monolayer from the luminal toward the basolateral side [199]. On the other hand, butyrate acts unfavorably against Stx expression, since butyrate upregulates Gb3 production. In an animal study, increased expression of Gb3 on intestinal and kidney tissue is assumed to be a consequence of a butyrate-dependent mechanism causing detrimental effects on the infected host [200].

4.2.7. Staphylococcal Enterotoxins (SEs)

To date, to the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence of inhibitory effects of NDOs against SEs. The cytotoxicity pathway of SEs starts with their binding to MHC II class molecules after crossing the epithelial barrier. Binding of SEs to MHC II class constitutes a pivotal step for their cytotoxicity and is one of the main therapeutic targets. The inactivity of NDOs against SEs might be related to the difficulty of high MW NDOs to cross the epithelial barrier, leading to a diminished chance for interaction with intracellular targets such as MHC II class. On the other hand, SCFA and especially butyrate is a well-known HDAC inhibitor and thus can downregulate pro-inflammatory mediator expression leading to increased regulatory T cell differentiation [201,202] However, even if SCFA have been proved to modulate host immune responses, no effect of SCFA was reported on MHC class II [203].

5. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

This review presents an overview of a great number of NDOs and SCFA, as their fermentation products produced by the gut microbiota, that could be considered as therapeutic agents to limit the cytotoxic effects on the human intestine induced by EPB and their toxins. Enterotoxins can drastically damage intestinal epithelial cells, leading to gastrointestinal and systematic complications. To exert their cytotoxicity, enterotoxins mostly alter cell viability through the inactivation or the cleavage of intracellular targets or by promoting the efflux of water and electrolytes through the formation of membrane pores. A thorough exploration of the key characteristics of intestinal pathogens and their toxins, resulted in the selection of various NDOs and SCFA as potential treatments fighting against EPB-related infections.
NDOs interact with EPB and thereby inhibit their activity following either direct or indirect mechanisms. Direct effects of NDOs on EPB, including anti-adhesive, anti-biofilm and anti-growth effects, partly rely on receptor mimicry strategies. The structural similarity between adhesive receptors of EPB and free oligosaccharides, enable NDOs to mimic bacterial binding to host cell surface, thereby blocking bacterial adherence. The anti-microbial potential of NDOs is not only governed by their structural similarity with the receptors, since other characteristics, such as e.g., their charge also endows them with additional potency to interact with EPB. However, not all related studies proposed a thorough explanation for the direct anti-pathogenic effects of NDOs. Consequently, a more elucidative characterization of NDOs along with a wider range of pathogens, could reveal further details of their anti-microbial capabilities. On the other hand, indirect strategies of NDOs, rely on the maintenance of gut homeostasis, mediated by the promotion of beneficial microbiome and subsequently by the activity of SCFA. Additionally, barrier-protecting and immune-related properties of NDOs and SCFA can also contribute to the maintenance of gut homeostasis.
Except the indirect and direct anti-pathogenic effects of NDOs on EPB, NDOs and SCFA influence the cytotoxicity of EPB-associated enterotoxins. The anti-toxin activity of NDOs mostly derives from the blockage of the enterotoxin adherence, as the primary step of the toxin-induced cytotoxicity pathway. Structural similarity between NDOs and toxin receptors leads to inhibition of toxin adherence. Despite their effects on the extracellular compartments, LMW NDOs have been shown to influence intracellular enterotoxin pathways, leading to the reduction in fluid hypersecretion. Similar anti-toxin potentials are also identified by SCFA, since their low MW enable them to cross the intestinal epithelium barrier and thereby target intracellular targets (e.g., HIF-1 factor). However, the most prominent cause of anti-toxin effects induced by SCFA is the creation of an acidic environment that results in unfavorable conditions for the enterotoxins. To uncover additional targets towards the pathways of enterotoxins, further research is warranted to elucidate adhesive mechanisms and eventually lead to the optimal NDOs or SCFA treatment corresponding to specific enterotoxin mechanisms.
Based on the findings of this review, NDOs (e.g., HMOs, GOS and POS) that acquire the highest structural resemblance with host cells receptors for enterotoxins demonstrated the highest anti-pathogenic capacity. Given the promising anti-pathogenic potential of NDOs, further research related to appropriate utilization of NDOs and SCFA through a clinical approach is required. Although food consumption and production vary between cultures, regions, and countries, NDOs are present in a wide variety of sources found in the regular human diet [204]. Different individual factors, like metabolism, gender, age, genetic variations and microbiome composition will influence the response to these dietary interventions, therefore, it is complicated to suggest a general sufficient amount and source of NDOs. In this regard, personalized nutrition will be more suitable than population-based nutritional advice [205]. NDOs are mostly tested as individual agents, but it could be interesting to evaluate the combination of NDOs with different SCFA to indicate if there is a possibility to exert a synergistic effect. To date, antibiotics are considered as the major therapeutic strategy to address infectious diseases. However, the improper and high use of antibiotics result in a decreased susceptibility and increased resistance against these antimicrobials. The use of NDOs and SCFA in lieu of or in combination with antibiotics to control infectious diseases might contribute to a reduction in this emerging antibiotic resistance. Additionally, several NDOs (such as GOS, FOS) have been already added in infant nutrition formulas in an attempt to mimic the endogenous HMOs. Thereby, NDOs already offer a safer and non-toxic alternative for anti-microbial therapy. In this respect, NDOs and SCFA provide specific, targeted activity and are less likely to present negative side effects in comparison with commensal treatments such as antibiotics. Given the burden and long-term consequences of microbial-associated gastrointestinal diseases, the route of using NDOs and SCFA to fortify gut flora and encounter EPB and their toxins holds much potential. Therefore, we anticipate that with additional focused studies, these anti-toxin molecules could soon reach the optimal goal to be used as therapeutic agents with great impact on the treatment of infectious diseases.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A. and G.-N.I.; writing—original draft preparation, G.-N.I. and M.A.; writing—review and editing, M.A. and P.A.J.H. and R.P. and G.F. and S.B.; Table and Figure creation, G.-N.I. and M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank Soheil Varasteh for attending a great first brainstorming meeting.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

ACAdenylyl cyclaseHMOsHuman milk oligosaccharides
AMPKAMP-activated protein kinase HMWHigh-molecular weight
AOSAlginate-oligosaccharidesHUSHemolytic uremic syndrome
B. breveBifidobacterium breveIECIntestinal epithelial cells
B. cereusBacillus cereusiK+intracytoplasmic K+
B. fragilisBacteroides fragilisIMOSIsomalto-oligosaccharides
C. difficileClostridium difficileInsP6Inositolhexakisphosphate
C. perfringensClostridium perfringensL. rhamnosusLactobacillus rhamnosus
cAMPcyclic AMPLMWLow-molecular weight
CDIC. difficile infectionsLNFPLacto-N-fucopentaose
CDTC. difficile transferase LNnhLacto-N-hexaose
CFTRCystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulatrorLSRLipoprotein receptor
cGMPcyclic GMP LTHeat-labile enterotoxin
COSChito-oligosaccharides/chitosan-oligosaccharidesManAD-Mannuronic acid
CPBC. perfringens beta toxin MHCMajor histocompatibility complex
CPEC. perfringens enterotoxin MOSMannan-oligosaccharides
CROPCombined repetitive peptidesMRSAMethicillin-resistant S. Aureus
CSPG4Chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan4 MUC2Mucin2
CTCholera toxinMWMolecular weight
CypACyclophilin ANDOsNon-digestible oligosaccharides
CytKCytotoxin K NetBNecrotic enteritis B-like toxin
DADegree of acetylation NheNon-hemolytic enterotoxin
DCDendritic cellsNHE3Na+/H+ exchanger 3
DDDegree of deacetylationPDE3Phosphodiesterase 3
DPDegree of polymerization PFTPore-forming toxins
E. coliEscherichia coliPKAProtein kinase A
EPBEnterotoxin-producing bacteriaPLCPhospholipase C
EPECEnteropathogenic E. coliPOSPectic-oligosaccharides
EPSExtracellular polymeric substance PVRL3Poliovirus receptor-like protein
EREndoplasmic reticulumS. AureusStaphylococcus Aureus
ETECEnterotoxigenic Escherichia coliSAgsSuperantigens
FOSFructo-oligosaccharidesSCFAShort chain fatty acids
FucFucoseSecSecretory
GalGalactoseSEsStaphylococcal Enterotoxins
GalAD-Galacturonic acid SISucrose-isomaltase
GC-CGuanylyl cyclase CSOSSialylated-oligosaccharides
GIGastrointestinalSTHeat-stable enterotoxin
GlcGlucoseSTECShiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli
GlcND-glucosamine StxShiga toxin
GlcNAcN-acetylglucosamine TcdAC. difficile toxin A
GOSGalacto-oligosaccharidesTcdBC. difficile toxin B
GsG proteinTCRT-cell receptors
GTDGlucosyltransferase domain TJTight junctions
GTPGuanosine triphosphate TSST-1toxic shock syndrome toxin-1
GulAD-Guluronic acidUDPUridine diphosphate
HBLHemolytic hemolysin B V. cholereaVibrio cholerea
HDACHistone deacetylase VTECVerocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli
HIFHypoxia-inducible factor XOSXylo-oligosaccharides

References

  1. Abebe, E.; Gugsa, G.; Ahmed, M. Review on Major Food-Borne Zoonotic Bacterial Pathogens. J. Trop. Med. 2020, 2020, 4674235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mussatto, S.I.; Mancilha, I.M. Non-digestible oligosaccharides: A review. Carbohydr. Polym. 2007, 68, 587–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Singh, P. Functional Oligosaccharides: Physico-chemical Properties, Synthesis, Structures and Biological Applications. JICS 2019, 9, 674–690. [Google Scholar]
  4. Libertucci, J.; Young, V.B. The role of the microbiota in infectious diseases. Nat. Microbiol. 2019, 4, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Artis, D. Epithelial-cell recognition of commensal bacteria and maintenance of immune homeostasis in the gut. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2008, 8, 411–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Popoff, M.R. Multifaceted interactions of bacterial toxins with the gastrointestinal mucosa. Futur. Microbiol. 2011, 6, 763–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Aslam, B.; Wang, W.; Arshad, M.I.; Khurshid, M.; Muzammil, S.; Rasool, M.H.; Nisar, M.A.; Alvi, R.F.; Aslam, M.A.; Qamar, M.U.; et al. Antibiotic resistance: A rundown of a global crisis. Infect. Drug Resist. 2018, 11, 1645–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Macfarlane, S. Antibiotic treatments and microbes in the gut. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 16, 919–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Akbari, P.; Fink-Gremmels, J.; Willems, R.H.A.M.; Difilippo, E.; Schols, H.A.; Schoterman, M.H.C.; Garssen, J.; Braber, S. Characterizing microbiota-independent effects of oligosaccharides on intestinal epithelial cells: Insight into the role of structure and size: Structure–activity relationships of non-digestible oligosaccharides. Eur. J. Nutr. 2017, 56, 1919–1930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Patel, S.; Goyal, A. Functional oligosaccharides: Production, properties and applications. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011, 27, 1119–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sun, Y.; O’Riordan, M.X.D. Regulation of bacterial pathogenesis by intestinal short-chain fatty acids. In Advances in Applied Microbiology; Academic Press Inc.: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013; Volume 85, pp. 93–118. [Google Scholar]
  12. Jessberger, N.; Dietrich, R.; Granum, P.; Märtlbauer, E. The Bacillus cereus Food Infection as Multifactorial Process. Toxins 2020, 12, 701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Granum, P.E.; Lund, T. Bacillus cereus and its food poisoning toxins. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2006, 157, 223–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Lund, T.; De Buyser, M.-L.; Granum, P.E. A new cytotoxin from Bacillus cereus that may cause necrotic enteritis. Mol. Microbiol. 2000, 38, 254–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Messelhäußer, U.; Ehling-Schulz, M. Bacillus cereus—A Multifaceted Opportunistic Pathogen. Curr. Clin. Microbiol. Rep. 2018, 5, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Senesi, S.; Ghelardi, E. Production, Secretion and Biological Activity of Bacillus cereus Enterotoxins. Toxins 2010, 2, 1690–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Stenfors Arnesen, L.P.; Fagerlund, A.; Granum, P.E. From soil to gut: Bacillus cereus and its food poisoning toxins. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2008, 32, 579–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cui, Y.; Märtlbauer, E.; Dietrich, R.; Luo, H.; Ding, S.; Zhu, K. Multifaceted toxin profile, an approach toward a better understanding of probioticBacillus cereus. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2019, 49, 342–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Sastalla, I.; Fattah, R.; Coppage, N.; Nandy, P.; Crown, D.; Pomerantsev, A.P.; Leppla, S.H. The Bacillus cereus Hbl and Nhe Tripartite Enterotoxin Components Assemble Sequentially on the Surface of Target Cells and Are Not Interchangeable. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e76955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Uzal, F.A.; Freedman, J.C.; Shrestha, A.; Theoret, J.R.; Garcia, J.; Awad, M.M.; Adams, V.; Moore, R.J.; Rood, J.I.; Mcclane, B.A. Towards an understanding of the role of Clostridium perfringens toxins in human and animal disease. Future Microbiol. 2014, 9, 361–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Navarro, M.A.; McClane, B.A.; Uzal, F.A. Mechanisms of Action and Cell Death Associated with Clostridium perfringens Toxins. Toxins 2018, 10, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nagahama, M.; Ochi, S.; Oda, M.; Miyamoto, K.; Takehara, M.; Kobayashi, K. Recent Insights into Clostridium perfringens Beta-Toxin. Toxins 2015, 7, 396–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Fernandez-Miyakawa, M.E.; Redondo, L.M. Role of Clostridium perfringens α, α, ξ, and Iota Toxins in Enterotoxemia of Monogastrics and Ruminants. In Microbial Toxins; Springer: Dordrecht. The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  24. Theoret, J.R.; Uzal, F.A.; McClane, B.A. Identification and Characterization of Clostridium perfringens Beta Toxin Variants with Differing Trypsin Sensitivity andIn VitroCytotoxicity Activity. Infect. Immun. 2015, 83, 1477–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Scallan, E.; Hoekstra, R.M.; Angulo, F.J.; Tauxe, R.V.; Widdowson, M.A.; Roy, S.L.; Jones, J.L.; Griffin, P.M. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States-Major pathogens. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kiu, R.; Hall, L.J. An update on the human and animal enteric pathogen Clostridium perfringens. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2018, 7, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Freedman, J.C.; Shrestha, A.; McClane, B.A. Clostridium perfringens Enterotoxin: Action, Genetics, and Translational Applications. Toxins 2016, 8, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Günzel, D.; Yu, A.S.L. Claudins and the Modulation of Tight Junction Permeability. Physiol. Rev. 2013, 93, 525–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Robertson, S.L.; Smedley, J.G.; Singh, U.; Chakrabarti, G.; Van Itallie, C.M.; Anderson, J.M.; McClane, B.A. Compositional and stoichiometric analysis of Clostridium perfringens enterotoxin complexes in Caco-2 cells and claudin 4 fibroblast transfectants. Cell. Microbiol. 2007, 9, 2734–2755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chen, J.; Theoret, J.R.; Shrestha, A.; Smedley, J.G.; McClane, B.A. Cysteine-Scanning Mutagenesis Supports the Importance of Clostridium perfringens Enterotoxin Amino Acids 80 to 106 for Membrane Insertion and Pore Formation. Infect. Immun. 2012, 80, 4078–4088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. NCBI Bookshelf. StatPearls. In Staphylococcus Aureus. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441868/ (accessed on 18 November 2020).
  32. Pinchuk, I.V.; Beswick, E.J.; Reyes, V.E. Staphylococcal Enterotoxins. Toxins 2010, 2, 2177–2197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Mead, P.S.; Slutsker, L.; Dietz, V.; McCaig, L.F.; Bresee, J.S.; Shapiro, C.; Griffin, P.M.; Tauxe, R.V. Food-Related Illness and Death in the United States. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 1999, 5, 607–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Scherrer, D.; Corti, S.; Muehlherr, J.E.; Zweifel, C.; Stephan, R. Phenotypic and genotypic characteristics of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from raw bulk-tank milk samples of goats and sheep. Vet. Microbiol. 2004, 101, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Benkerroum, N. Staphylococcal enterotoxins and enterotoxin-like toxins with special reference to dairy products: An overview. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 58, 1943–1970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Krakauer, T. Staphylococcal Superantigens: Pyrogenic Toxins Induce Toxic Shock. Toxins 2019, 11, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chandrasekaran, R.; Lacy, D.B. The role of toxins in Clostridium difficile infection. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2017, 41, 723–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Martin, J.S.H.; Monaghan, T.M.; Wilcox, M.H. Clostridium difficile infection: Epidemiology, diagnosis and understanding transmission. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2016, 13, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Davies, K.A.; Longshaw, C.M.; Davis, G.L.; Bouza, E.; Barbut, F.; Barna, Z.; Delmée, M.; Fitzpatrick, F.; Ivanova, K.; Kuijper, E.; et al. Underdiagnosis of Clostridium difficile across Europe: The European, multicentre, prospective, biannual, point-prevalence study of Clostridium difficile infection in hospitalised patients with diarrhoea (EUCLID). Lancet Infect. Dis. 2014, 14, 1208–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Center of Disease Control. Healthcare-associated Infections. In Clostridioides Difficile Infection. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/hai/organisms/cdiff/cdiff_infect.html (accessed on 28 May 2020).
  41. Voth, D.E.; Ballard, J.D. Clostridium difficile Toxins: Mechanism of Action and Role in Disease. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2005, 18, 247–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Aktories, K.; Schwan, C.; Jank, T. Clostridium difficileToxin Biology. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2017, 71, 281–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Pothoulakis, C.; Galili, U.; Castagliuolo, I.; Kelly, C.P.; Nikulasson, S.; Dudeja, P.K.; Brasitus, T.A.; Lamont, J.T. A human antibody binds to α-galactose receptors and mimics the effects of Clostridium difficile toxin A in rat colon. Gastroenterology 1996, 110, 1704–1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Na, X.; Kim, H.; Moyer, M.P.; Pothoulakis, C.; Lamont, J.T. gp96 Is a Human Colonocyte Plasma Membrane Binding Protein for Clostridium difficile Toxin A. Infect. Immun. 2008, 76, 2862–2871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Yuan, P.; Zhang, H.; Cai, C.; Zhu, S.; Zhou, Y.; Yang, X.; He, R.; Li, C.; Guo, S.; Li, S.; et al. Chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan 4 functions as the cellular receptor for Clostridium difficile toxin B. Cell Res. 2015, 25, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. LaFrance, M.E.; Farrow, M.A.; Chandrasekaran, R.; Sheng, J.; Rubin, D.H.; Lacy, D.B. Identification of an epithelial cell receptor responsible for Clostridium difficile TcdB-induced cytotoxicity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 7073–7078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chandrasekaran, R.; Kenworthy, A.K.; Lacy, D.B. Clostridium difficile Toxin A Undergoes Clathrin-Independent, PACSIN2-Dependent Endocytosis. PLoS Pathog. 2016, 12, e1006070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Papatheodorou, P.; Zamboglou, C.; Genisyuerek, S.; Guttenberg, G.; Aktories, K. Clostridial Glucosylating Toxins Enter Cells via Clathrin-Mediated Endocytosis. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e10673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Genisyuerek, S.; Papatheodorou, P.; Guttenberg, G.; Schubert, R.; Benz, R.; Aktories, K. Structural determinants for membrane insertion, pore formation and translocation of Clostridium difficile toxin B. Mol. Microbiol. 2011, 79, 1643–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Irvine, R.F.; Schell, M.J. Back in the water: The return of the inositol phosphates. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2001, 2, 327–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Gerding, D.N.; Johnson, S.; Rupnik, M.; Aktories, K. Clostridium difficile binary toxin CDT: Mechanism, epidemiology, and potential clinical importance. Gut Microbes 2014, 5, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Papatheodoroua, P.; Carette, J.E.; Bell, G.W.; Schwan, C.; Guttenberg, G.; Brummelkamp, T.R.; Aktories, K. Lipolysis-stimulated lipoprotein receptor (LSR) is the host receptor for the binary toxin Clostridium difficile transferase (CDT). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 16422–16427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mesli, S.; Javorschi, S.; Bérard, A.M.; Landry, M.; Priddle, H.; Kivlichan, D.; Smith, A.J.H.; Yen, F.T.; Bihain, B.E.; Darmon, M. Distribution of the lipolysis stimulated receptor in adult and embryonic murine tissues and lethality of LSR-/- embryos at 12.5 to 14.5 days of gestation. Eur. J. Biochem. 2004, 271, 3103–3114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ernst, K.; Schmid, J.; Beck, M.; Hägele, M.; Hohwieler, M.; Hauff, P.; Ückert, A.K.; Anastasia, A.; Fauler, M.; Jank, T.; et al. Hsp70 facilitates trans-membrane transport of bacterial ADP-ribosylating toxins into the cytosol of mammalian cells. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Schwan, C.; Stecher, B.; Tzivelekidis, T.; Van Ham, M.; Rohde, M.; Hardt, W.-D.; Wehland, J.; Aktories, K. Clostridium difficile Toxin CDT Induces Formation of Microtubule-Based Protrusions and Increases Adherence of Bacteria. PLoS Pathog. 2009, 5, e1000626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Tang, Y.-W.; Sails, A.; Poxton, I.; Liu, D.; Schwartzman, J.D. Molecular Medical Microbiology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014; Available online: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uunl/detail.action?docID=1798299 (accessed on 22 May 2020).
  57. Niyi Awofeso, K.A. Cholera, Migration, and Global Health—A Critical Review. Int. J. Travel Med. Glob. Health 2018, 6, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kuna, A.; Gajewski, M. Cholera—The new strike of an old foe. Int. Marit. Health 2017, 68, 163–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Ramamurthy, T.; Mutreja, A.; Weill, F.-X.; Das, B.; Ghosh, A.; Nair, G.B. Revisiting the Global Epidemiology of Cholera in Conjunction With the Genomics of Vibrio cholerae. Front. Public Health 2019, 7, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. WHO. Cholera. Available online: https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cholera (accessed on 26 May 2020).
  61. Keya, C.; Chatterjee, S.N. Cholera Toxins; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  62. Sánchez, J.; Holmgren, J. Cholera toxin—A foe & a friend. Indian J. Med. Res. 2011, 133, 153–163. [Google Scholar]
  63. Aureli, M.; Mauri, L.; Ciampa, M.G.; Prinetti, A.; Toffano, G.; Secchieri, C.; Sonnino, S. GM1 Ganglioside: Past Studies and Future Potential. Mol. Neurobiol. 2015, 53, 1824–1842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Merritt, E.A.; Sarfaty, S.; Van Den Akker, F.; L’hoir, C.; Martial, J.A.; Hol, W.G.J. Crystal Structure of Cholera Toxin B-Pentamer Bound to Receptor GMl Pentasaccharide; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
  65. Chinnapen, D.J.-F.; Chinnapen, H.; Saslowsky, D.; Lencer, W.I. Rafting with cholera toxin: Endocytosis and trafficking from plasma membrane to ER. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2007, 266, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Orlandi, P.A.; Fishman, P.H. Filipin-dependent Inhibition of Cholera Toxin: Evidence for Toxin Internalization and Activation through Caveolae-like Domains. J. Cell Biol. 1998, 141, 905–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Torgersen, M.L.; Skretting, G.; Van Deurs, B.; Sandvig, K. Internalization of cholera toxin by different endocytic mechanisms. J. Cell Sci. 2001, 114, 3737–3747. [Google Scholar]
  68. Kirkham, M.; Fujita, A.; Chadda, R.; Nixon, S.J.; Kurzchalia, T.V.; Sharma, D.K.; Pagano, R.E.; Hancock, J.F.; Mayor, S.; Parton, R.G. Ultrastructural identification of uncoated caveolin-independent early endocytic vehicles. J. Cell Biol. 2005, 168, 465–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Wernick, N.L.B.; Chinnapen, D.J.-F.; Cho, J.A.; Lencer, W.I. Cholera Toxin: An Intracellular Journey into the Cytosol by Way of the Endoplasmic Reticulum. Toxins 2010, 2, 310–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Raufman, J.P. Cholera. Am. J. Med. 1998, 104, 386–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Denamur, E.; Clermont, O.; Bonacorsi, S.; Gordon, D. The population genetics of pathogenic Escherichia coli. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2021, 19, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Duan, Q.; Xia, P.; Nandre, R.; Zhang, W.; Zhu, G. Review of Newly Identified Functions Associated with the Heat-Labile Toxin of Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2019, 9, 292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Jobling, M.G.; Holmes, R.K. Heat-Labile Enterotoxins. EcoSal Plus 2006, 2, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Wang, H.; Zhong, Z.; Luo, Y.; Cox, E.; Devriendt, B. Heat-Stable Enterotoxins of Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli and Their Impact on Host Immunity. Toxins 2019, 11, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Mudrak, B.; Kuehn, M.J. Heat-Labile Enterotoxin: Beyond G M1 Binding. Toxins 2010, 2, 1445–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Taxt, A.; Aasland, R.; Sommerfelt, H.; Nataro, J.; Puntervoll, P. Heat-Stable Enterotoxin of Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli as a Vaccine Target. Infect. Immun. 2010, 78, 1824–1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Albano, F.; Thompson, M.R.; Orrù, S.; Scaloni, A.; Musetta, A.; Pucci, P.; Guarino, A. Structural and Functional Features of Modified Heat-Stable Toxins Produced by Enteropathogenic Klebsiella Cells. Pediatr. Res. 2000, 48, 685–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Jackson, M.P.; Neill, R.J.; O’Brien, A.D.; Holmes, R.K.; Newland, J.W. Nucleotide sequence analysis and comparison of the structural genes for Shiga-like toxin I and Shiga-like toxin II encoded by bacteriophages from Escherichia coli 933. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1987, 44, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bryan, A.; Youngster, I.; McAdam, A.J. Shiga Toxin Producing Escherichia coli. Clin. Lab. Med. 2015, 35, 247–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Majowicz, S.E.; Scallan, E.; Jones-Bitton, A.; Sargeant, J.M.; Stapleton, J.; Angulo, F.J.; Yeung, D.H.; Kirk, M.D. Global Incidence of Human Shiga Toxin–ProducingEscherichia coliInfections and Deaths: A Systematic Review and Knowledge Synthesis. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2014, 11, 447–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Melton-Celsa, A.R. Shiga Toxin (Stx) Classification, Structure, and Function. Microbiol. Spectr. 2014, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Licznerska, K.; Nejman-Faleńczyk, B.; Bloch, S.; Dydecka, A.; Topka, G.; Gąsior, T.; Węgrzyn, A.; Węgrzyn, G. Oxidative Stress in Shiga Toxin Production by Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli. Oxidative Med. Cell. Longev. 2015, 2016, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Chan, Y.S.; Ng, T.B. Shiga toxins: From structure and mechanism to applications. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 100, 1597–1610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lukyanenko, V.; Malyukova, I.; Hubbard, A.; Delannoy, M.; Boedeker, E.; Zhu, C.; Cebotaru, L.; Kovbasnjuk, O. Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli infection stimulates Shiga toxin 1 macropinocytosis and transcytosis across intestinal epithelial cells. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 2011, 301, C1140–C1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Malyukova, I.; Murray, K.F.; Zhu, C.; Boedeker, E.; Kane, A.; Patterson, K.; Peterson, J.R.; Donowitz, M.; Kovbasnjuk, O. Macropinocytosis in Shiga toxin 1 uptake by human intestinal epithelial cells and transcellular transcytosis. Am. J. Physiol. Liver Physiol. 2009, 296, 78–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Sandvig, K.; Garred, Ø.; Prydz, K.; Kozlov, J.V.; Hansen, S.H.; Van Deurs, B. Retrograde transport of endocytosed Shiga toxin to the endoplasmic reticulum. Nature 1992, 358, 510–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Joseph, A.; Cointe, A.; Kurkdjian, P.M.; Rafat, C.; Hertig, A. Shiga Toxin-Associated Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome: A Narrative Review. Toxins 2020, 12, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Wang, Y.; Guo, Q.; Goff, H.D.; Lapointe, G. Oligosaccharides: Structure, Function and Application. Encycl. Food Chem. 2019, 202–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Seeberger, P.H. Monosaccharide Diversity. In Essentials of Glycobiology, 3rd ed.; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017; Chapter 2. [Google Scholar]
  90. Liu, J.; Yang, S.; Li, X.; Yan, Q.; Reaney, M.J.T.; Jiang, Z. Alginate Oligosaccharides: Production, Biological Activities, and Potential Applications. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2019, 18, 1859–1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Kaczmarek, M.B.; Struszczyk-Swita, K.; Li, X.; Szczęsna-Antczak, M.; Daroch, M. Enzymatic Modifications of Chitin, Chitosan, and Chitooligosaccharides. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2019, 7, 243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Muanprasat, C.; Chatsudthipong, V. Chitosan oligosaccharide: Biological activities and potential therapeutic applications. Pharmacol. Ther. 2017, 170, 80–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ibrahim, O.O. Functional Oligo-saccharides: Chemicals Structure, Manufacturing, Health Benefits, Applications and Regulations. J. Food Chem. Nanotechnol. 2018, 4, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Louis, P.; Flint, H.J.; Michel, C. How to manipulate the microbiota: Prebiotics. In Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; Volume 902, pp. 119–142. [Google Scholar]
  95. Aparecida, A.; Tomal, B.; Farinazzo, F.S.; Bachega, A.; Bosso, A.; Bonifácio Da Silva, J.; Suguimoto, H. Galactooligosacharides and Human Health Implications. Int. J. Nutr. Food Sci. 2019, 9. [Google Scholar]
  96. 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]
  97. Boehm, G.; Stahl, B.; Jelinek, J.; Knol, J.; Miniello, V.; Moro, G.E. Prebiotic carbohydrates in human milk and formulas. Acta Paediatr. 2007, 94, 18–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Wicinski, M.; Sawicka, E.; Gebalski, J.; Kubiak, K.; Malinovsi, B. Human Milk Oligosaccharides: Health Benefits, Potential Applications in Infant Formulas, and Pharmacology. Nutrients 2020, 12, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Hoving, L.R.; van der Zande, H.J.P.; Pronk, A.; Guigas, B.; Willems van Dijk, K.; van Harmelen, V. Dietary yeast-derived mannan oligosaccharides have immune-modulatory properties but do not improve high fat diet-induced obesity and glucose intolerance. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0196165. [Google Scholar]
  100. Liu, X.; Wang, Q.; Cui, S.; Liu, H. A new isolation method of β-d-glucans from spent yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Food Hydrocoll. 2008, 22, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Baldassarre, S.; Babbar, N.; Van Roy, S.; Dejonghe, W.; Maesen, M.; Sforza, S.; Elst, K. Continuous production of pectic oligosaccharides from onion skins with an enzyme membrane reactor. Food Chem. 2018, 267, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Babbar, N.; Dejonghe, W.; Gatti, M.; Sforza, S.; Elst, K. Pectic oligosaccharides from agricultural by-products: Production, characterization and health benefits. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2015, 36, 594–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Lin, S.-H.; Chou, L.-M.; Chien, Y.-W.; Chang, J.-S.; Lin, C.-I. Prebiotic Effects of Xylooligosaccharides on the Improvement of Microbiota Balance in Human Subjects. Gastroenterol. Res. Pr. 2016, 2016, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Aachary, A.A.; Prapulla, S.G. Xylooligosaccharides (XOS) as an Emerging Prebiotic: Microbial Synthesis, Utilization, Structural Characterization, Bioactive Properties, and Applications. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2010, 10, 2–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Ackerman, D.L.; Craft, K.M.; Doster, R.S.; Weitkamp, J.-H.; Aronoff, D.M.; Gaddy, J.A.; Townsend, S.D. Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Activity of Human Milk Oligosaccharides against Streptococcus agalactiae, Staphylococcus aureus, and Acinetobacter baumannii. ACS Infect. Dis. 2018, 4, 315–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Asadpoor, M.; Peeters, C.; Henricks, P.A.J.; Varasteh, S.; Pieters, R.J.; Folkerts, G.; Braber, S. Anti-Pathogenic Functions of Non-Digestible Oligosaccharides In Vitro. Nutritiens 2020, 12, 1789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Ríos-Covián, D.; Ruas-Madiedo, P.; Margolles, A.; Gueimonde, M.; De los Reyes-Gavilán, C.G.; Salazar, N. Intestinal Short Chain Fatty Acids and their Link with Diet and Human Health. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Piatek, J.; Krauss, H.; Ciechelska-Rybarczyk, A.; Bernatek, M.; Wojtyla-Buciora, P.; Sommermeyer, H. In-Vitro Growth Inhibition of Bacterial Pathogens by Probiotics and a Synbiotic: Product Composition Matters. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Anand, S.; Mandal, S.; Singh, K.S.; Patil, P.; Tomar, S.K. Synbiotic combination of Lactobacillus rhamnosus NCDC 298 and short chain fructooligosaccharides prevents enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli infection. LWT 2018, 98, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Stefania, D.M.; Miranda, P.; Diana, M.; Claudia, Z.; Rita, P.; Donatella, P. Antibiofilm and Antiadhesive Activities of Different Synbiotics. J. Probiotics Health 2017, 5, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Fooks, L.J.; Gibson, G.R. In vitro investigations of the effect of probiotics and prebiotics on selected human intestinal pathogens. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2002, 39, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Lkhagvadorj, E.; Nagata, S.; Wada, M.; Bian, L.; Wang, C.; Chiba, Y.; Yamashiro, Y.; Shimizu, T.; Asahara, T.; Nomoto, K. Anti-infectious activity of synbiotics in a novel mouse model of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Microbiol. Immunol. 2010, 54, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Kondepudi, K.K.; Ambalam, P.; Karagin, P.H.; Nilsson, I.; Wadström, T.; Ljungh, Å. A novel multi-strain probiotic and synbiotic supplement for prevention of Clostridium difficile infection in a murine model. Microbiol. Immunol. 2014, 58, 552–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Martín-Sosa, S.; Martín, M.-J.; Hueso, P. The Sialylated Fraction of Milk Oligosaccharides Is Partially Responsible for Binding to Enterotoxigenic and Uropathogenic Escherichia coli Human Strains. J. Nutr. 2002, 132, 3067–3072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Cravioto, A.; Tello, A.; Villafdn, H.; Ruiz, J.; Vedovo, S.; Neeser, J. Inhibition of Localized Adhesion of Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli to HEp-2 Cells by Immunoglobulin and Oligosaccharide Fractions of Human Colostrum and Breast Milk. J. Infect. Dis. 1991, 163, 1247–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Coppa, G.V.; Zampini, L.; Galeazzi, T.; Facinelli, B.; Ferrante, L.; Capretti, R.; Orazio, G. Human Milk Oligosaccharides Inhibit the Adhesion to Caco-2 Cells of Diarrheal Pathogens: Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, and Salmonella fyris. Pediatr. Res. 2006, 59, 377–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Weichert, S.; Jennewein, S.; Hufner, E.; Weiss, C.; Borkowski, J.; Putze, J.; Schroten, H. Bioengineered 2′-fucosyllactose and 3-fucosyllactose inhibit the adhesion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and enteric pathogens to human intestinal and respiratory cell lines. Nutr. Res. 2013, 33, 831–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Facinelli, B.; Marini, E.; Magi, G.; Zampini, L.; Santoro, L.; Catassi, C.; Monachesi, C.; Gabrielli, O.; Coppa, G.V. Breast milk oligosaccharides: Effects of 2′-fucosyllactose and 6′-sialyllactose on the adhesion of Escherichia coli and Salmonella fyris to Caco-2 cells. J. Matern.-Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019, 32, 2950–2952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Manthey, C.F.; Autran, C.A.; Eckmann, L.; Bode, L. Human Milk Oligosaccharides Protect Against Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli Attachment In Vitro and EPEC Colonization in Suckling Mice. J. Pediatric Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2014, 58, 167–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Khan, S.; Tøndervik, A.; Sletta, H.; Klinkenberg, G.; Emanuel, C.; Onsøyen, E.; Myrvold, R.; Howe, R.A.; Walsh, T.R.; Hill, K.E.; et al. Overcoming Drug Resistance with Alginate Oligosaccharides Able To Potentiate the Action of Selected Antibiotics. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2012, 56, 5134–5141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Fernandes, J.C.; Tavaria, F.K.; Soares, J.C.; Ramos, Ó.S.; Monteiro, M.J.; Pintado, M.E.; Malcata, F.X. Antimicrobial effects of chitosans and chitooligosaccharides, upon Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli, in food model systems. Food Microbiol. 2008, 25, 922–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Rhoades, J.; Gibson, G.; Formentin, K.; Beer, M.; Rastall, R. Inhibition of the adhesion of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli strains to HT-29 cells in culture by chito-oligosaccharides. Carbohydr. Polym. 2006, 64, 57–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Jeon, Y.J.; Park, P.J.; Kim, S.K. Antimicrobial effect of chitooligosaccharides produced by bioreactor. Carbohydr. Polym. 2001, 44, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Sánchez, A.; Mengíbar, M.; Rivera-Rodríguez, G.; Moerchbacher, B.; Acosta, N.; Heras, A. The effect of preparation processes on the physicochemical characteristics and antibacterial activity of chitooligosaccharides. Carbohydr. Polym. 2017, 157, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Laokuldilok, T.; Potivas, T.; Kanha, N.; Surawang, S.; Seesuriyachan, P.; Wangtueai, S.; Phimolsiripol, Y.; Regenstein, J.M. Physicochemical, antioxidant, and antimicrobial properties of chitooligosaccharides produced using three different enzyme treatments. Food Biosci. 2017, 18, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Kumar, A.B.V.; Varadaraj, M.C.; Gowda, L.R.; Tharanathan, R.N. Characterization of chito-oligosaccharides prepared by chitosanolysis with the aid of papain and Pronase, and their bactericidal action against Bacillus cereus and Escherichia coli. Biochem. J. 2005, 391, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Shoaf, K.; Mulvey, G.L.; Armstrong, G.D.; Hutkins, R.W. Prebiotic Galactooligosaccharides Reduce Adherence of Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli to Tissue Culture Cells. Infect. Immun. 2006, 74, 6920–6928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Xu, X.; Qiao, Y.; Peng, Q.; Gao, L.; Shi, B. Inhibitory effects of YCW and MOS from Saccharomyces cerevisiae on Escherichia coli and Salmonella pullorum adhesion to Caco-2 cells. Front. Biol. 2017, 12, 370–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Bouckaert, J.; MacKenzie, J.; De Paz, J.L.; Chipwaza, B.; Choudhury, D.; Zavialov, A.; Mannerstedt, K.; Anderson, J.; Pierard, D.; Wyns, L.; et al. The affinity of the FimH fimbrial adhesin is receptor-driven and quasi-independent of Escherichia coli pathotypes. Mol. Microbiol. 2006, 61, 1556–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Martinov, J.; Krstić, M.; Spasić, S.; Miletić, S.; Stefanović-Kojić, J.; Nikolić-Kokić, A.; Blagojević, D.; Spasojević, I.; Spasić, M.B. Apple pectin-derived oligosaccharides produce carbon dioxide radical anion in Fenton reaction and prevent growth of Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. Food Res. Int. 2017, 100, 132–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Rhoades, J.; Manderson, K.; Wells, A.; Hotchkiss, A.T.; Gibson, G.R.; Formentin, K.; Beer, M.; Rastall, R.A. Oligosaccharide-Mediated Inhibition of the Adhesion of Pathogenic Escherichia coli Strains to Human Gut Epithelial Cells In Vitro. J. Food Prot. 2008, 71, 2272–2277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Li, P.-J.; Xia, J.-L.; Nie, Z.-Y.; Shan, Y. Pectic oligosaccharides hydrolyzed from orange peel by fungal multi-enzyme complexes and their prebiotic and antibacterial potentials. LWT 2016, 69, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Li, S.; Li, T.; Zhu, R.; Wang, N.; Song, Y.; Wang, S.; Guo, M. Antibacterial Action of Haw Pectic Oligosaccharides. Int. J. Food Prop. 2013, 16, 706–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Benhabiles, M.; Salah, R.; Lounici, H.; Drouiche, N.; Goosen, M.; Mameri, N. Antibacterial activity of chitin, chitosan and its oligomers prepared from shrimp shell waste. Food Hydrocoll. 2012, 29, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Kyoon, H.; Young, N.; Ho, S.; Meyers, S.P. Antibacterial activity of chitosans and chitosan oligomers with different molecular weights. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2002, 74, 65–72. [Google Scholar]
  136. Zheng, L.-Y.; Zhu, J.-F. Study on antimicrobial activity of chitosan with different molecular weights. Carbohydr. Polym. 2003, 54, 527–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Lee, J.-H.; Shim, J.S.; Lee, J.S.; Kim, M.-K.; Chung, M.-S.; Kim, K.H. Pectin-like acidic polysaccharide from Panax ginseng with selective antiadhesive activity against pathogenic bacteria. Carbohydr. Res. 2006, 341, 1154–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Wang, Z.; Yang, Q.; Wang, X.; Li, R.; Qiao, H.; Ma, P.; Sun, Q.; Zhang, H. Antibacterial activity of xanthan-oligosaccharide against Staphylococcus aureus via targeting biofilm and cell membrane. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 153, 539–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Piotrowski, M.; Wultańska, D.; Obuch-Woszczatyński, P.; Pituch, H. Fructooligosaccharides and mannose affect Clostridium difficile adhesion and biofilm formation in a concentration-dependent manner. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2019, 38, 1975–1984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Di, R.; Vakkalanka, M.S.; Onumpai, C.; Chau, H.K.; White, A.; Rastall, R.A.; Yam, K.; Hotchkiss, A.T. Pectic oligosaccharide structure-function relationships: Prebiotics, inhibitors of Escherichia coli O157:H7 adhesion and reduction of Shiga toxin cytotoxicity in HT29 cells. Food Chem. 2017, 227, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Almagro-Moreno, S.; Pruss, K.; Taylor, R.K. Intestinal Colonization Dynamics of Vibrio cholerae. PLoS Pathog. 2015, 11, e1004787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Choi, B.-K.; Kim, K.-Y.; Yoo, Y.-J.; Oh, S.-J.; Choi, J.-H.; Kim, C.-Y. In vitro antimicrobial activity of a chitooligosaccharide mixture against Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans and Streptococcus mutans. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2001, 18, 553–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Liu, H.; Du, Y.; Wang, X.; Sun, L. Chitosan kills bacteria through cell membrane damage. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004, 95, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Reffuveille, F.; Josse, J.; Vallé, Q.; Mongaret, C.; Gangloff, S.C. Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms and their Impact on the Medical Field. In The Rise of Virulence and Antibiotic Resistance in Staphylococcus aureus; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  145. Tin, S.; Lim, C.; Sakharkar, M.; Sakharkar, K. Synergistic Combinations of Chitosans and Antibiotics in Staphylococcus aureus. Lett. Drug Des. Discov. 2010, 7, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Moon, J.S.; Kim, H.K.; Koo, H.C.; Joo, Y.S.; Nam, H.M.; Park, Y.H.; Kang, M. Il The antibacterial and immunostimulative effect of chitosan-oligosaccharides against infection by Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine mastitis. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 75, 989–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Fei Liu, X.; Lin Guan, Y.; Zhi Yang, D.; Yao, K. DE Antibacterial Action of Chitosan and Carboxymethylated Chitosan. J. Appl. Polym. 2000, 79, 1324–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Valcheva, R.; Dieleman, L.A. Prebiotics: Definition and protective mechanisms. Best Pr. Res. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2016, 30, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Servin, A.L. Antagonistic activities of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria against microbial pathogens. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2004, 28, 405–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Gopalakrishnan, A.; Clinthorne, J.F.; Rondini, E.A.; McCaskey, S.J.; Gurzell, E.A.; Langohr, I.M.; Gardner, E.M.; Fenton, J.I. Supplementation with Galacto-Oligosaccharides Increases the Percentage of NK Cells and Reduces Colitis Severity in Smad3-Deficient Mice. J. Nutr. 2012, 142, 1336–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Ringel, Y. Using Probiotics in Gastrointestinal Disorders Original Contributions. Am. J. Gastroenterol. Suppl. 2012, 1, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Matsuzaki, T.; Chin, J. Modulating immune responses with probiotic bacteria. Immunol. Cell Biol. 2000, 78, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Cherbut, C.; Michel, C.; Rard Lecannu, G. Biochemical and Molecular Actions of Nutrients the Prebiotic Characteristics of Fructooligosaccharides Are Necessary for Reduction of TNBS-Induced Colitis in Rats; National Institute for Agricultural Research, Gut Function and Human Nutrition Unit: Nantes, France, 2003; Volume 133. [Google Scholar]
  154. He, Y.; Liu, S.; Kling, D.E.; Leone, S.; Lawlor, N.T.; Huang, Y.; Feinberg, S.B.; Hill, D.R.; Newburg, D.S. The human milk oligosaccharide 2′-fucosyllactose modulates CD14 expression in human enterocytes, thereby attenuating LPS-induced inflammation. Gut 2014, 65, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Akbari, P.; Braber, S.; Alizadeh, A.; Verheijden, K.A.T.; Schoterman, M.H.C.; Kraneveld, A.D.; Garssen, J.; Fink-gremmels, J. Galacto-oligosaccharides Protect the Intestinal Barrier by Maintaining the Tight Junction Network and Modulating the Inflammatory Responses after a Challenge with the Mycotoxin Deoxynivalenol in Human Caco-2 Cell. J. Nutr. 2015, 145, 1604–1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Cai, Y.; Folkerts, J.; Folkerts, G.; Maurer, M.; Braber, S. Microbiota-dependent and-independent effects of dietary fibre on human health. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2020, 177, 1363–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Jeurink, P.V.; Van Esch, B.C.A.M.; Rijnierse, A.; Garssen, J.; Knippels, L.M.J. Mechanisms underlying immune effects of dietary oligosaccharides. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2013, 98, 572–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Kleessen, B.; Blaut, M. Modulation of gut mucosal biofilms. Br. J. Nutr. 2005, 93, S35–S40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Martin, T.A.; Jiang, W.G. Loss of tight junction barrier function and its role in cancer metastasis. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Biomembr. 2009, 1788, 872–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Cani, P.D.; Possemiers, S.; Van De Wiele, T.; Guiot, Y.; Everard, A.; Rottier, O.; Geurts, L.; Naslain, D.; Neyrinck, A.; Lambert, D.M.; et al. Changes in gut microbiota control inflammation in obese mice through a mechanism involving GLP-2-driven improvement of gut permeability. Gut 2009, 58, 1091–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Kleessen, B.; Hartmann, L.; Blaut, M. Fructans in the diet cause alterations of intestinal mucosal architecture, released mucins and mucosa-associated bifidobacteria in gnotobiotic rats. Br. J. Nutr. 2003, 89, 597–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Plöger, S.; Stumpff, F.; Penner, G.B.; Schulzke, J.-D.; Gäbel, G.; Martens, H.; Shen, Z.; Günzel, D.; Aschenbach, J.R. Microbial butyrate and its role for barrier function in the gastrointestinal tract. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2012, 1258, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Peng, L.; Li, Z.-R.; Green, R.S.; Holzman, I.R.; Lin, J. Butyrate Enhances the Intestinal Barrier by Facilitating Tight Junction Assembly via Activation of AMP-Activated Protein Kinase in Caco-2 Cell Monolayers. J. Nutr. 2009, 139, 1619–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Fachi, J.L.; De, J.; Felipe, S.; Passariello, L.; Dos, A.; Farias, S.; Varga-Weisz, P.; Auré, M.; Vinolo, R. Butyrate Protects Mice from Clostridium difficile-Induced Colitis through an HIF-1-Dependent Mechanism. Cell Rep. 2019, 27, 750.e7–761.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Bilotta, A.J.; Cong, Y. Gut microbiota metabolite regulation of host defenses at mucosal surfaces: Implication in precision medicine. Precis. Clin. Med. 2019, 2, 110–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Paassen, N.B.-V.; Vincent, A.; Puiman, P.J.; Van Der Sluis, M.; Bouma, J.; Boehm, G.; Van Goudoever, J.B.; Van Seuningen, I.; Renes, I.B. The regulation of intestinal mucin MUC2 expression by short-chain fatty acids: Implications for epithelial protection. Biochem. J. 2009, 420, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Holscher, H.D.; Davis, S.R.; Tappenden, K.A. Human Milk Oligosaccharides Influence Maturation of Human Intestinal Caco-2Bbe and HT-29 Cell Lines. J. Nutr. 2014, 144, 586–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Bhatia, S.; Prabhu, P.N.; Benefiel, A.C.; Miller, M.J.; Chow, J.; Davis, S.R.; Gaskins, H.R. Galacto-oligosaccharides may directly enhance intestinal barrier function through the modulation of goblet cells. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2015, 59, 566–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Asahara, T.; Shimizu, K.; Nomoto, K.; Hamabata, T.; Ozawa, A.; Takeda, Y. Probiotic Bifidobacteria Protect Mice from Lethal Infection with Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli O157:H7. Infect. Immun. 2004, 72, 2240–2247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Chang, E.B.; Leung, P.S. Intestinal water and electrolyte transport. In The Gastrointestinal System: Gastrointestinal, Nutritional and Hepatobiliary Physiology; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 107–134. ISBN 9789401787710. [Google Scholar]
  171. Muanprasat, C.; Wongkrasant, P.; Satitsri, S.; Moonwiriyakit, A.; Pongkorpsakol, P.; Mattaveewong, T.; Pichyangkura, R.; Chatsudthipong, V. Activation of AMPK by chitosan oligosaccharide in intestinal epithelial cells: Mechanism of action and potential applications in intestinal disorders. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2015, 96, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Sinclair, H.R.; Smejkal, C.W.; Glister, C.; Kemp, F.; Van Den Heuvel, De Slegte, E. J.; Gibson, G.R.; Rastall, R.A. Sialyloligosaccharides inhibit cholera toxin binding to the GM1 receptor. Carbohydr. Res. 2008, 343, 2589–2594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Idota, T.; Kawakami, H.; Murakami, Y.; Sugawara, M. Inhibition of Cholera Toxin by Human Milk Fractions and Sialyllactose. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 1995, 59, 417–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Sinclair, H.R.; De Slegte, J.; Gibson, G.R.; Rastall, R.A. Galactooligosaccharides (GOS) Inhibit Vibrio cholerae Toxin Binding to Its GM1 Receptor. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 3113–3119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Sethi, A.; Wands, A.M.; Mettlen, M.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Wu, H.; Kohler, J.J. Cell type and receptor identity regulate cholera toxin subunit B (CTB) internalization. Interface Focus 2019, 9, 20180076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Wands, A.M.; Cervin, J.; Huang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Youn, G.; Brautigam, C.A.; Dzebo, M.M.; Björklund, P.; Wallenius, V.; Bright, D.K.; et al. Fucosylated Molecules Competitively Interfere with Cholera Toxin Binding to Host Cells. ACS Infect. Dis. 2018, 4, 758–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. El-Hawiet, A.; Kitova, E.N.; Klassen, J.S. Recognition of human milk oligosaccharides by bacterial exotoxins. Glycobiology 2015, 25, 845–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Pukin, A.V.; Branderhorst, H.M.; Sisu, C.; Weijers, C.A.G.M.; Gilbert, M.; Liskamp, R.M.J.; Visser, G.M.; Zuilhof, H.; Pieters, R.J. Strong Inhibition of Cholera Toxin by Multivalent GM1 Derivatives. ChemBioChem 2007, 8, 1500–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Ommen, D.D.Z.-V.; Pukin, A.V.; Fu, O.; Van Ufford, L.H.Q.; Janssens, H.M.; Beekman, J.M.; Pieters, R.J. Functional Characterization of Cholera Toxin Inhibitors Using Human Intestinal Organoids. J. Med. Chem. 2016, 59, 6968–6972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Haksar, D.; De Poel, E.; Van Ufford, L.H.C.Q.; Bhatia, S.; Haag, R.; Beekman, J.M.; Pieters, R.J. Strong Inhibition of Cholera Toxin B Subunit by Affordable, Polymer-Based Multivalent Inhibitors. Bioconjugate Chem. 2019, 30, 785–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Haksar, D.; Van Ufford, L.Q.; Pieters, R.J. A hybrid polymer to target blood group dependence of cholera toxin. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2019, 18, 52–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Rabbani, G.H.; Albert, M.J.; Rahman, H.; Chowdhury, A.K. Short-chain fatty acids inhibit fluid and electrolyte loss induced by cholera toxin in proximal colon of rabbit in vivo. Dig. Dis. Sci. 1999, 44, 1547–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. El-Hawiet, A.; Kitova, E.N.; Kitov, P.I.; Eugenio, L.; Ng, K.K.; Mulvey, G.L.; Dingle, T.C.; Szpacenko, A.; Armstrong, G.D.; Klassen, J.S. Binding of Clostridium difficile toxins to human milk oligosaccharides. Glycobiology 2011, 21, 1217–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Gerhard, R. Receptors and binding structures for clostridium difficile toxins A and B. In Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; Volume 406, pp. 79–96. [Google Scholar]
  185. Nguyen, T.T.H.; Kim, J.W.; Park, J.-S.; Hwang, K.H.; Jang, T.-S.; Kim, C.-H.; Kim, D. Identification of Oligosaccharides in Human Milk Bound onto the Toxin A Carbohydrate Binding Site of Clostridium difficile. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 26, 659–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Koleva, P.T.; Valcheva, R.S.; Sun, X.; Gänzle, M.G.; Dieleman, L.A. Inulin and fructo-oligosaccharides have divergent effects on colitis and commensal microbiota in HLA-B27 transgenic rats. Br. J. Nutr. 2012, 108, 1633–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. May, T.; Mackie, R.I.; Fahey, G.C.; Cremin, J.C.; Garleb, K.A. Effect of Fiber Source on Short-Chain Fatty Acid Production and on the Growth and Toxin Production by Clostridium difficile. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 1994, 29, 916–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  188. Veshnyakova, A.; Protze, J.; Rossa, J.; Blasig, I.E.; Krause, G.; Piontek, J. On the Interaction of Clostridium perfringens Enterotoxin with Claudins. Toxins 2010, 2, 1336–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Ulluwishewa, D.; Anderson, R.C.; McNabb, W.C.; Moughan, P.J.; Wells, J.M.; Roy, N.C. Regulation of Tight Junction Permeability by Intestinal Bacteria and Dietary Components. J. Nutr. 2011, 141, 769–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Wrigley, D.M. Inhibition of Clostridium perfringens sporulation by Bacteroides fragilis and short-chain fatty acids. Anaerobe 2004, 10, 295–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Newburg, D.S.; Pickering, L.K.; McCluer, R.H.; Cleary, T.G. Fucosylated Oligosaccharides of Human Milk Protect Suckling Mice from Heat-Stabile Enterotoxin of Escherichia coli. J. Infect. Dis. 1990, 162, 1075–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Crane, J.K.; Azar, S.S.; Stam, A.; Newburg, D.S. Oligosaccharides from Human Milk Block Binding and Activity of the Escherichia coli Heat-Stable Enterotoxin (STa) in T84 Intestinal Cells. J. Nutr. 1994, 124, 2358–2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Anand, S.; Mandal, S.; Tomar, S.K. Effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus NCDC 298 with FOS in Combination on Viability and Toxin Production of Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2017, 11, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Takashi, K.; Fujita, I.; Kobari, K. Effects of short chain fatty acids on the production of heat-labile enterotoxin from enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Jpn. J. Pharmacol. 1989, 50, 495–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Olano-Martin, E.; Williams, M.R.; Gibson, G.R.; Rastall, R.A. Pectins and pectic-oligosaccharides inhibit Escherichia coli O157:H7 Shiga toxin as directed towards the human colonic cell line HT29. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2003, 218, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Di, R.; Kyu, E.; Shete, V.; Saidasan, H.; Kahn, P.C.; Tumer, N.E. Identification of amino acids critical for the cytotoxicity of Shiga toxin 1 and 2 in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae. Toxicon 2011, 57, 525–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Carey, C.M.; Kostrzynska, M.; Ojha, S.; Thompson, S. The effect of probiotics and organic acids on Shiga-toxin 2 gene expression in enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7. J. Microbiol. Methods 2008, 73, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Fukuda, S.; Toh, H.; Taylor, T.D.; Ohno, H.; Hattori, M. Acetate-producing bifidobacteria protect the host from enteropathogenic infection via carbohydrate transporters. Gut Microbes 2012, 3, 449–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  199. Fukuda, S.; Toh, H.; Hase, K.; Oshima, K.; Nakanishi, Y.; Yoshimura, K.; Tobe, T.; Clarke, J.M.; Topping, D.L.; Suzuki, T.; et al. Bifidobacteria can protect from enteropathogenic infection through production of acetate. Nat. Cell Biol. 2011, 469, 543–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Zumbrun, S.D.; Melton-Celsa, A.R.; Smith, M.A.; Gilbreath, J.J.; Merrell, D.S.; O’Brien, A.D. Dietary choice affects Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) O157:H7 colonization and disease. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, E2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  201. Davie, J.R. Nutritional Proteomics in Cancer Prevention Inhibition of Histone Deacetylase Activity. J. Nutr. 2003, 133, 2485–2493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Furusawa, Y.; Obata, Y.; Fukuda, S.; Endo, T.A.; Nakato, G.; Takahashi, D.; Nakanishi, Y.; Uetake, C.; Kato, K.; Kato, T.; et al. Commensal microbe-derived butyrate induces the differentiation of colonic regulatory T cells. Nat. Cell Biol. 2013, 504, 446–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Nastasi, C.; Fredholm, S.; Willerslev-Olsen, A.; Hansen, M.; Bonefeld, C.M.; Geisler, C.; Andersen, M.H.; Ødum, N.; Woetmann, A. Butyrate and propionate inhibit antigen-specific CD8+ T cell activation by suppressing IL-12 production by antigen-presenting cells. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Roberfroid, M.; Slavin, J. Nondigestible. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2000, 40, 461–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. De Toro-Martín, J.; Arsenault, B.J.; Després, J.-P.; Vohl, M.-C. Precision Nutrition: A Review of Personalized Nutritional Approaches for the Prevention and Management of Metabolic Syndrome. Nutritiens 2017, 9, 913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.