Next Article in Journal
Special Issue “Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria in the Environment, Their Resistance and Transfer Mechanisms”
Next Article in Special Issue
Gastroparesis: The Complex Interplay with Microbiota and the Role of Exogenous Infections in the Pathogenesis of the Disease
Previous Article in Journal
Eukaryotic Community Structure and Interspecific Interactions in a Stratified Acidic Pit Lake Water in Anhui Province
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

The Role of Microbiota in Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Functional Disorders

by
Francesco Vito Mandarino
1,*,
Emanuele Sinagra
2,
Dario Raimondo
2 and
Silvio Danese
1
1
Division of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, San Raffaele Hospital, 20132 Milan, Italy
2
Gastroenterology & Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione Istituto G. Giglio, Contrada Pietra Pollastra Pisciotto, 90015 Cefalù, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2023, 11(4), 980; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11040980
Submission received: 1 March 2023 / Revised: 4 April 2023 / Accepted: 6 April 2023 / Published: 9 April 2023
Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs), also known as disorders of gut–brain interaction, are a group of disorders characterized by chronic gastrointestinal symptoms in the absence of demonstrable pathology on conventional testing. They are commonly encountered in clinical practice and the community [1]; according to a recent survey that utilized the Rome IV diagnostic criteria, the worldwide prevalence of FGIDs is approximately 40% [2].
The most recent classification scheme (ROME IV) categorizes FGIDs into 33 adult disorders and 20 paediatric disorders; the most prevalent subtypes are irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), which is characterized by abdominal discomfort, altered bowel habits, and bloating, and functional dyspepsia (FD), which causes epigastric pain, discomfort, and satiety [3].
While the pathophysiology of FGIDs is complex, it has been reported that intestinal microbiota harbours a pivotal role in both the development of FGID and the modulation of clinical symptoms [4,5]. Remarkably, the latest evidence has shown that FGIDs [6,7] are linked with intestinal dysbiosis, defined as relevant changes in the diversity, density, or metabolic activity of gut bacteria [8].
Previously, FGIDs were primarily linked with psychosocial conditions, but an improved understanding of their pathophysiology has changed this perception. The management of patients with FGIDs now considers their genetic predisposition, epigenetics, neural connections, lifestyle habits, enteric nervous system (ENS), environmental factors, and their interaction with microbiota [3]. It must be said that recently there have been significant advances in the available therapeutic options for FGIDs, including even endoscopic treatment options, such as in cases of refractory gastroparesis [9,10].
The gut microbiome is a heterogeneously dense microbial system that regulates the physiology and pathophysiology of the host through a broad network of biochemical pathways [3,11].
Initially, the pathogenic component of gut microbiota was shown to be associated with FGIDs, with up to 10% of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients having gastrointestinal infections followed by gut microbiota dysbiosis, resulting in the occurrence of IBS (postinfectious IBS) [12].
Advances in technology have improved our understanding of the gut microbiome [13].
One of the compelling pieces of evidence of the role of microbiota in FGIDs originates from studies in germ-free (GF) mice, which showed alterations in gut transit, visceral sensation, and intestinal barrier function after faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) from patients with FGIDs [3,14,15].
Changes in gut microbiota in the small bowel and colon have been extensively studied in patients with FGIDs [3,12], as they can affect gut motility, intestinal gas profile, gut immune and intestinal barrier function, visceral sensation, neuro-immuno-endocrine interface and, finally, gut–brain axis [3,16,17].
Remarkably, dysregulation of the gut–brain axis is a primary mechanism in some FGIDs patients [3,18], where the interplay between the gut and brain is critical [19,20]: the brain modifies gut physiology, such as visceral sensitivity and motility, thus causing symptoms of FGIDs [21], while changes in the gut can impact psychological well-being [22].
Gut microbiota dysbiosis can be modified by various treatments; these changes may be understood as a trigger for FGIDs, or they may be the goal of the treatment, impacting symptoms.
Dietary intervention represents the simplest therapy to restore healthy gut microbiota, such as consuming fiber-rich diets to increase the production of short-chain fatty acids or following a low-FODMAP diet [3].
Probiotics have been demonstrated to be effective in alleviating FGIDs symptoms; however, more evidence is needed [3].
Antibiotics have been suggested to play a pivotal role in the development of IBS [23]. Several studies have shown that antibacterial therapy induces shifts in bacterial community composition such as those seen in IBS. This finding is further suggested by data from cohort and case-control studies that have highlighted an increased risk of IBS associated with antibiotic treatment. On the other hand, rifaximin has shown benefits in non-C-IBS [24], and there is optimism regarding its use in C-IBS [25,26].
The use of FMT is believed to be helpful in treating gut dysbiosis by restoring a “healthy” microbial environment. However, it is still unclear whether FMT is an effective therapy for FGIDs or whether it only works as a placebo [27,28,29].
The characterization of gut microbiota species in healthy and FGID patients has made significant progress. However, further studies in human patients and animal models are needed to ensure the exact roles of microbiota and its derived metabolites that are connected to the pathophysiological pathways of FGIDs. Furthermore, new data will clarify ways in which restoring healthy gut microbiota would keep the microbiota–gut–brain axis in balance and improve clinical symptoms.
Beyond FGIDs, gut microbiota also plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of organic diseases of the digestive tract, such as inflammatory bowel diseases [30,31,32], eosinophilic esophagitis [33], and others [34], as well as in the development of post-surgical complications [35,36], which require endoscopic treatment [37,38,39,40,41]. Characterization of the microbiota may represent a future therapeutic approach for these conditions as well.
In this Special Issue of Microorganisms, state-of-the-art studies that emphasize the role of the gut microbiome in influencing the main pathophysiological mechanisms involved in FGIDs are welcomed. Our goal is to implement knowledge of ways in which characterization and study of the microbiota may contribute to FGIDs, from pathophysiological aspects to new therapeutic applications.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.S. and F.V.M.; writing—original draft preparation, E.S., F.V.M. and editing, E.S. supervision, S.D. and D.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

All the authors thank the Hospital G. Giglio and the Hospital San Raffaele due to the support provided to all the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ghoshal, U.C.; Singh, R. Frequency and risk factors of functional gastro-intestinal disorders in a rural Indian population. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017, 32, 378–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sperber, A.D.; Bangdiwala, S.I.; Drossman, D.A.; Ghoshal, U.C.; Simren, M.; Tack, J.; Whitehead, W.E.; Dumitrascu, D.L.; Fang, X.; Fukudo, S.; et al. Worldwide prevalence and burden of functional gastrointestinal disorders, results of Rome Foundation Global Study. Gastroenterology 2021, 160, 99–114.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Drossman, D.A. Functional gastrointestinal disorders: What’s new for Rome IV? Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2016, 1, 6–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wei, L.; Singh, R.; Ro, S.; Ghoshal, U.C. Gut microbiota dysbiosis in functional gastrointestinal disorders: Underpinning the symptoms and pathophysiology. JGH Open. 2021, 5, 976–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ghoshal, U.C. Gut microbiota-brain axis modulation by a healthier microbiological microenvironment: Facts and fictions. J. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2018, 24, 4–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shah, A.; Talley, N.J.; Jones, M.; Kendall, B.J.; Koloski, N.; Walker, M.M.; Morrison, M.; Holtmann, G.J. Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Case-Control Studies. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2020, 115, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Gurusamy, S.R.; Shah, A.; Talley, N.J.; Koloski, N.; Jones, M.P.; Walker, M.M.; Morrison, M.; Holtmann, G. Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth in Functional Dyspepsia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2021, 116, 935–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Shah, A.; Morrison, M.; Holtmann, G.J. Gastroduodenal “Dysbiosis”: A New Clinical Entity. Curr. Treat Options Gastroenterol. 2018, 16, 591–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vosoughi, K.; Ichkhanian, Y.; Benias, P.; Miller, L.; Aadam, A.A.; Triggs, J.R.; Law, R.; Hasler, W.; Bowers, N.; Chaves, D.; et al. Gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) for refractory gastroparesis: Results from an international prospective trial. Gut 2022, 71, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mandarino, F.V.; Testoni, S.G.G.; Barchi, A.; Pepe, G.; Esposito, D.; Fanti, L.; Viale, E.; Biamonte, P.; Azzolini, F.; Danese, S. Gastric emptying study before gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM): Can intragastric meal distribution be a predictor of success? Gut 2023, 72, 1019–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ford, A.C.; Mahadeva, S.; Carbone, M.F.; Lacy, B.E.; Talley, N.J. Functional dyspepsia. Lancet 2020, 396, 1689–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ford, A.C.; Sperber, A.D.; Corsetti, M.; Camilleri, M. Irritable bowel syndrome. Lancet 2020, 396, 1675–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ghoshal, U.C. Marshall and Warren Lecture 2019: A paradigm shift in pathophysiological basis of irritable bowel syndrome and its implication on treatment. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 35, 712–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Barbara, G.; Feinle-Bisset, C.; Ghoshal, U.C.; Quigley, E.M.; Santos, J.; Vanner, S.; Vergnolle, N.; Zoetendal, E.G. The intestinal microenvironment and functional gastrointestinal disorders. Gastroenterology 2016, 150, 1305–1318.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Shin, A.; Preidis, G.A.; Shulman, R.; Kashyap, P.C. The gut microbiome in adult and pediatric functional gastrointestinal disorders. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019, 17, 256–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. De Palma, G.; Lynch, M.D.; Lu, J.; Dang, V.T.; Deng, Y.; Jury, J.; Umeh, G.; Miranda, P.M.; Pigrau Pastor, M.; Sidani, S.; et al. Transplantation of fecal microbiota from patients with irritable bowel syndrome alters gut function and behavior in recipient mice. Sci. Transl. Med. 2017, 9, eaaf6397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Edogawa, S.; Edwinson, A.L.; Peters, S.A.; Chikkamenahalli, L.L.; Sundt, W.; Graves, S.; Gurunathan, S.V.; Breen-Lyles, M.; Johnson, S.; Dyer, R.; et al. Serine proteases as luminal mediators of intestinal barrier dysfunction and symptom severity in IBS. Serine proteases as luminal mediators of intestinal barrier dysfunction and symptom severity in IBS. Gut 2020, 69, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sinagra, E.; Pompei, G.; Tomasello, G.; Cappello, F.; Morreale, G.C.; Amvrosiadis, G.; Rossi, F.; Lo Monte, A.I.; Rizzo, A.G.; Raimondo, D. Inflammation in irritable bowel syndrome: Myth or new treatment target? World J. Gastroenterol. 2016, 22, 2242–2255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sinagra, E.; Morreale, G.C.; Mohammadian, G.; Fusco, G.; Guarnotta, V.; Tomasello, G.; Cappello, F.; Rossi, F.; Amvrosiadis, G.; Raimondo, D. New therapeutic perspectives in irritable bowel syndrome: Targeting low-grade inflammation, immuno-neuroendocrine axis, motility, secretion and beyond. World J. Gastroenterol. 2017, 23, 6593–6627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Margolis, K.G.; Cryan, J.F.; Mayer, E.A. The Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis: From Motility to Mood. Gastroenterology 2021, 160, 1486–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sinagra, E.; Pellegatta, G.; Guarnotta, V.; Maida, M.; Rossi, F.; Conoscenti, G.; Pallio, S.; Alloro, R.; Raimondo, D.; Pace, F.; et al. Microbiota Gut-Brain Axis in Ischemic Stroke: A Narrative Review with a Focus about the Relationship with Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Life 2021, 11, 715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sinagra, E.; Utzeri, E.; Morreale, G.C.; Fabbri, C.; Pace, F.; Anderloni, A. Microbiota-gut-brain axis and its affect inflammatory bowel disease: Pathophysiological concepts and insights for clinicians. World J. Clin. Cases 2020, 8, 1013–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Quigley, E.M.M. Microbiota-brain-gut axis and neurodegenerative diseases. Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 2017, 17, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Mamieva, Z.; Poluektova, E.; Svistushkin, V.; Sobolev, V.; Shifrin, O.; Guarner, F.; Ivashkin, V. Antibiotics, gut microbiota, and irritable bowel syndrome: What are the relations? World J. Gastroenterol. 2022, 28, 1204–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pimentel, M.; Lembo, A.; Chey, W.D.; Zakko, S.; Ringel, Y.; Yu, J.; Mareya, S.M.; Shaw, A.L.; Bortey, E.; Forbes, W.P. Rifaximin therapy for patients with irritable bowel syndrome without constipation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011, 364, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Basseri, R.J.; Weitsman, S.; Barlow, G.M.; Pimentel, M. Antibiotics for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2011, 7, 455–493. [Google Scholar]
  27. Khoruts, A.; Sadowsky, M.J. Understanding the mechanisms of faecal microbiota transplantation. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2016, 13, 508–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shanahan, F.; Ghosh, T.S.; O’Toole, P.W. The healthy microbiome-what is the definition of a healthy gut microbiome? Gastroenterology 2021, 160, 483–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pulipati, P.; Sarkar, P.; Jakkampudi, A.; Kaila, V.; Sarkar, S.; Unnisa, M.; Reddy, D.N.; Khan, M. The Indian gut microbiota-Is it unique? Indian J. Gastroenterol. 2020, 39, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wiredu Ocansey, D.K.; Hang, S.; Yuan, X.; Qian, H.; Zhou, M.; Valerie Olovo, C.; Zhang, X.; Mao, F. The diagnostic and prognostic potential of gut bacteria in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut. Microbes. 2023, 15, 2176118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sinagra, E.; Aragona, E.; Romano, C.; Maisano, S.; Orlando, A.; Virdone, R.; Tesè, L.; Modesto, I.; Criscuoli, V.; Cottone, M. The role of portal vein thrombosis in the clinical course of inflammatory bowel diseases: Report on three cases and review of the literature. Gastroenterol. Res. Pract. 2012, 2012, 916428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Sinagra, E.; Romano, C.; Cottone, M. Psychopharmacological treatment and psychological interventions in irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterol. Res. Pract. 2012, 2012, 486067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Massimino, L.; Barchi, A.; Mandarino, F.V.; Spanò, S.; Lamparelli, L.A.; Vespa, E.; Passaretti, S.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L.; Savarino, E.V.; Jairath, V.; et al. A multi-omic analysis reveals the esophageal dysbiosis as the predominant trait of eosinophilic esophagitis. J. Transl. Med. 2023, 21, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Binda, C.; Gibiino, G.; Coluccio, C.; Sbrancia, M.; Dajti, E.; Sinagra, E.; Capurso, G.; Sambri, V.; Cucchetti, A.; Ercolani, G.; et al. Biliary Diseases from the Microbiome Perspective: How Microorganisms Could Change the Approach to Benign and Malignant Diseases. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zamorano, D.; Ivulic, D.; Viver, T.; Morales, F.; López-Kostner, F.; Vidal, R.M. Microbiota Phenotype Promotes Anastomotic Leakage in a Model of Rats with Ischemic Colon Resection. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Boatman, S.; Kohn, J.; Jahansouz, C. The Influence of the Microbiome on Anastomotic Leak. Clin. Colon Rectal Surg. 2023, 36, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mandarino, F.V.; Barchi, A.; Fanti, L.; D’Amico, F.; Azzolini, F.; Esposito, D.; Biamonte, P.; Lauri, G.; Danese, S. Endoscopic vacuum therapy for post-esophagectomy anastomotic dehiscence as rescue treatment: A single center case series. Esophagus 2022, 19, 417–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Amato, A.; Sinagra, E.; Celsa, C.; Enea, M.; Buda, A.; Vieceli, F.; Scaramella, L.; Belletrutti, P.; Fugazza, A.; Cammà, C.; et al. Efficacy of lumen-apposing metal stents or self-expandable metal stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2021, 53, 1037–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mandarino, F.V.; Esposito, D.; Spelta, G.N.E.; Cavestro, G.M.; Rosati, R.; Parise, P.; Gemma, M.F.; Fanti, L. Double layer stent for the treatment of leaks and fistula after upper gastrointestinal oncologic surgery: A retrospective study. Updates Surg. 2022, 74, 1055–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mandarino, F.V.; Barchi, A.; Biamonte, P.; Esposito, D.; Azzolini, F.; Fanti, L.; Danese, S. The prophylactic use of endoscopic vacuum therapy for anastomotic dehiscence after rectal anterior resection: Is it feasible for redo surgery? Tech. Coloproctol. 2022, 26, 319–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mandarino, F.V.; Barchi, A.; D’Amico, F.; Fanti, L.; Azzolini, F.; Viale, E.; Esposito, D.; Rosati, R.; Fiorino, G.; Bemelman, W.A.; et al. Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy (EVT) versus Self-Expandable Metal Stent (SEMS) for Anastomotic Leaks after Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Life 2023, 13, 287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mandarino, F.V.; Sinagra, E.; Raimondo, D.; Danese, S. The Role of Microbiota in Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Functional Disorders. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 980. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11040980

AMA Style

Mandarino FV, Sinagra E, Raimondo D, Danese S. The Role of Microbiota in Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Functional Disorders. Microorganisms. 2023; 11(4):980. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11040980

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mandarino, Francesco Vito, Emanuele Sinagra, Dario Raimondo, and Silvio Danese. 2023. "The Role of Microbiota in Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Functional Disorders" Microorganisms 11, no. 4: 980. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11040980

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop