Next Article in Journal
Physicochemical and Rheological Properties of Degraded Konjac Gum by Abalone (Haliotis discus hannai) Viscera Enzyme
Next Article in Special Issue
Ex Vivo Study of Colon Health, Contractility and Innervation in Male and Female Rats after Regular Exposure to Instant Cascara Beverage
Previous Article in Journal
Multisensory Food Experiences in Northern Norway: An Exploratory Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Chemical Components, Nutritional Value, Volatile Organic Compounds and Biological Activities In Vitro of Coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) Water with Different Maturities
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Role of Nondigestible Oligosaccharides in Alleviating Human Chronic Diseases by Regulating the Gut Microbiota: A Review

1
State Key Laboratory of Food Science and Resource, Engineering Research Center for Biomass Conversion, Ministry of Education, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330047, China
2
School of Public Health, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330019, China
3
Jiangxi Maternel and Child Health Hospital, Nanchang 330108, China
4
Chongqing Research Institute of Nanchang University, Chongqing 402660, China
5
Shangrao Innovation Institute of Agricultural Technology, College of Life Science, Shangrao Normal University, Shangrao 334001, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Foods 2024, 13(13), 2157; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13132157
Submission received: 25 May 2024 / Revised: 30 June 2024 / Accepted: 6 July 2024 / Published: 8 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Healthy Foods and Nutraceuticals: Exploring Their Value)

Abstract

:
The gut has been a focus of chronic disease research. The gut microbiota produces metabolites that act as signaling molecules and substrates, closely influencing host health. Nondigestible oligosaccharides (NDOs), as a common dietary fiber, play an important role in regulating the structure and function of the gut microbiota. Their mechanism of action is mainly attributed to providing a carbon source as specific probiotics, producing related metabolites, and regulating the gut microbial community. However, due to the selective utilization of oligosaccharides, some factors, such as the type and structure of oligosaccharides, have different impacts on the composition of microbial populations and the production of metabolites in the colon ecosystem. This review systematically describes the key factors influencing the selective utilization of oligosaccharides by microorganisms and elaborates how oligosaccharides affect the host’s immune system, inflammation levels, and energy metabolism by regulating microbial diversity and metabolic function, which in turn affects the onset and progress of chronic diseases, especially diabetes, obesity, depression, intestinal inflammatory diseases, and constipation. In this review, we re-examine the interaction mechanisms between the gut microbiota and its associated metabolites and diseases, and we explore new strategies for promoting human health and combating chronic diseases through dietary interventions.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Chronic diseases refer to diseases that have a slow onset, slow progression, long course, and usually cannot be completely cured. In the past few years, the role of the gut microbiota in related diseases has been extensively studied, such as ulcerative colitis [1], irritable bowel syndrome [2], diabetes [3], Alzheimer’s disease [4], nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [5], and obesity [6]. In this case, the role of probiotics becomes particularly important. By regulating the balance of the gut microbiota, it is possible to maintain the stability of the gut environment, enhance intestinal barrier function, reduce gut inflammation levels, and help regulate energy metabolism and insulin sensitivity [7,8,9]. For example, in obese individuals, the diversity of the gut microbiota is decreased, which is usually accompanied by changes in key species [6,10,11,12,13] like Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes [14,15]. Diabetes mellitus type 2 (T2DM) is characterized by an impaired gut microbiota [16,17], and Akkermansia and Enterobacter have been found to have a causal role in the onset and progression of T2DM [18]. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is regarded as a typical metabolic disorder at the intersection of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and T2DM [19], often with a proliferation of Enterobacteriaceae and Escherichia coli [20]. Dysbiosis of the gut microbiota has also been associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), encompassing three main phenotypes—Crohn’s disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC), and IBD unclassified (IBDU) [21]. There are common microbial patterns among IBD patients, manifested at the phylum level as a loss of Firmicutes [22,23,24] and an increase in Proteobacteria and potential pathogenic bacteria [25,26,27,28]. At the genus level, Clostridium and Escherichia coli are significantly increased in IBD, whereas Phascolarctobacterium, Faecalibacterium, and Roseburia intestinalis are significantly decreased [27,29,30,31,32]. The gut–brain axis plays an important role in neurological diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD), anxiety, and depression. The gut microbiota is linked to the central nervous system in a variety of ways, including regulation of immune responses, formation of metabolites (e.g., short chain fatty acids), and synthesis of neurotransmitters (e.g., serotonin and dopamine). Now some studies have shown that some microorganisms can regulate intestinal homeostasis and hinder the progression of neurological diseases [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. In fact, diet is the main determinant that drives the growth of gut microbiota and regulates its interaction with the host. The lack of a sufficient functional microbiota and accessible carbohydrates (MAC) is the main reason for the disappearance of important species that regulate intestinal homeostasis [42,43]. Nondigestible oligosaccharides (NDOs) are a typical MAC that are easily broken down by the metabolic enzymes of Bacteroides and Lactobacillus. The use of oligosaccharide fermentation to improve intestinal health is a widespread and current focus [44,45]. The beneficial effects and promising prospects of NDOs on the host by targeting the gut microbiota and microbial metabolites are now generally accepted [46,47,48,49,50], including improvement of bowel movements, suppression of appetite, enhancement of postprandial glycemic response, and promotion of mineral absorption. This article describes the structure and sources of NDOs, as well as the factors affecting the microbial fermentation of NDOs, and then it elucidates the important role of oligosaccharides in chronic diseases by regulating the gut microbiota.

2. Classification and Sources of Oligosaccharides

Oligosaccharides are a class of carbohydrates that consist of 2 to 10 monosaccharide molecules, typically consisting of two or more different monosaccharides that are linked together in various ways through glycosidic bonds [51], classified as digestible or indigestible [52]. In some dietary oligosaccharides, the anomeric C atom (C1 or C2) of the monosaccharide unit has a configuration that makes their glycosidic bonds nondigestible to human digestive enzymes [52]. In addition to α-1,4 glycosidic bonds, the chemical bonds between monosaccharides in NDOs also contain α-1,6 glycosidic bonds or β-1,2 glycosidic bonds that cannot be degraded by human digestive enzymes. Nondigestible oligosaccharides Oligosaccharides belong to prebiotics along with fiber polysaccharides, which are selectively fermented and cause specific changes in the composition and/or activity of the gastrointestinal microbiota, thereby benefiting the wellbeing and health of the host [53,54]. The source and structural characteristics of the main functional oligosaccharides are listed in Table 1.

3. The Impact of Different NDOs on the Diversity of the Gut Microbiota

Nondigestible oligosaccharides (NDOs) are typically fermented by microorganisms via enzymes related to carbohydrate metabolism [64,65]. For example, LAB can degrade FOS and GOS by encoding β-FFase and β-galactosidase [66]. Different NDOs often have many differences, such as the source, degree of polymerization, glycosidic bonds, and overall structural complexity (e.g., side chains) [67,68,69]. These differences result in a diverse microbiota for fermenting NDOs, manifested by varying degrees of beneficial bacterial proliferation, inhibition of harmful bacteria, and differences in acid and gas production [70].

3.1. Degree of Polymerization (DP)

In fact, NDOs with different DPs can be utilized by different strains. For example, DP3 oligofructose (FOS) promoted the growth of Bifidobacterium species in vitro while inhibiting the proliferation of Clostridia, and it showed superior selective stimulatory activity compared to other FOS [71]. In previous work, Gopal et al. [72] demonstrated that Bifidobacterium lactis DR10 consume oligosaccharides (GOS) with higher DP, while Lactobacillus rhamnosus DR20 prefer to use galactose disaccharides. Zhao et al. [73] evaluated the prebiotic ability of bamboo shoot shell xylo-oligosaccharides (XOS) with different DPs, and showed that XOS with a high DP (>X5) led to an increase in the abundance of beneficial bacteria, such as Phascolarctobacterium and Bacteroides, while low-DP XOS with more X2–X3 components promoted the proliferation of other beneficial bacteria, including Lachnochlostridium. Immerzeel et al. [74] and Falck et al. [75] demonstrated that Bifidobacterium adolescentis and Lactobacillus acidophilus predominantly utilized the X2–X3 fractions.
Degradation of high-DP NDOs by microorganisms usually requires more energy consumption because microorganisms preferentially degrade high-DP NDOs to low-DP NDOs, which limits the metabolic capacity of the gut microbiota [76]. On the contrary, the decomposition of low-DP NDOs is relatively simple and requires less energy by microorganisms, thus it has a stronger ability to support the growth and proliferation of the gut microbiota [77]. For example, another study on oligosaccharides showed that the component with DP 3–4 (≥80%) was utilized by all probiotic strains, the portion with DP 5–6 was utilized by some strains, and the portion with DP ≥ 7 was only utilized by Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and Bifidobacteria [78]. Similarly, isomaltose from DP 3–5 was more indigestible than DP 2, and although it had a higher chance of reaching the colon, its fermentation selectivity for beneficial probiotic species was lower [79,80].
The impacts of NDOs with different DPs on the major metabolites produced by the gut microbiota differ. Firstly, NDOs with different DPs can lead to the generation of different types and proportions of short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) by the gut microbiota. The fermentation of NDOs with high DP is slower, gradually releasing more butyric acid, and can serve as a potential substrate to induce the proliferation of butyric acid-producing bacteria. Low-DP NDOs are rapidly fermented, producing more acetic acid and propionic acid [73,81]. Different amounts of gas products, such as hydrogen and carbon dioxide, are also generated during the fermentation of NDOs with different DPs. Usually, NDOs with high DP have less gas production due to slower fermentation rate, while NDOs with low DP have a faster fermentation rate and more gas production.

3.2. Glycosidic Bond

The fermentation process of NDOs in the intestine involves the ingestion of oligosaccharides that are first recognized by modular glycanase on bacterial membranes and then hydrolyzed into oligosaccharides with low DP. Afterward, the low-DP NDOs are transported into the cell through membrane protein transporters and broken down by enzymes into disaccharides and monosaccharides [82]. For example, GOS is transported to cells through galactoside-pentose-hexuronide permease (LacS) and hydrolyzed into galactose and glucose by β-galactosidase, which is then directed to the Leloir pathway and glycolysis [83]. FOS is first taken up by L. acidophilus cells through ABC transporters and degraded into β-glucoside, which is further decomposed into fructose and glucose by fructosidase and β-furanosidase, respectively [45]. In subspecies of Bifidobacterium infantile, HMO substrates are transported intact through ABC transporters, and subsequent hydrolysis is mediated by various cytoplasmic glycosidases, including alpha-fucosylase and 2,3/6-α sialidase [45,82].
The different structures of NDOs have different effects on the gut microbiome, including glycosidic bond type and connection mode. For example, α-(1→3)- and α-(1→2)-linked glucose oligosaccharides (GlcOSs) formed during isomaltooligosaccharide (IMO) production promote the growth of Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp. [84], and their fermentation selectivity (against probiotic species in gut bacteria) is higher than that of only α-(1→6)-linked IMOs [85]. Zeng et al. [86] studied the effect of NDOs with different disaccharide bonds on selected Lactobacillus, and most of the species had low growth rates on IMOs with α-(1→6) except L. fermentum FUA 3589, where β-(1→4)-linked fibrous disaccharides and β-(1→6)-linked gentian disaccharides were able to significantly promote the proliferation of L. brevis ATCC 8287, L. rhamnosus ATCC 53103, L. plantarum WCFS1, and L. gasseri ATCC 33323. Similarly, Sanz et al. [70] investigated the prebiotic index (PI) of disaccharides, which was higher for α-glucose disaccharides than for β-types, except for α, α-alginose. Djouzi Z. et al. [87] compared the effects of β-oligofructose, β-oligogalactose, and α-oligosaccharides (non-disaccharides) on the metabolism of the gut microbiota, and compared to α-oligosaccharides, oligofructose and oligogalactose containing β-glycosidic bonds were the preferred substrates for the growth of Bifidobacteria, having a great impact on microbial composition, which has been found in several studies [88,89]. More importantly, it has been reported that the intake of GOS containing β-1,3, β-1,4, and β-1,6 glycosidic bonds showed better prebiotic effects in healthy volunteers [90]. In addition, Kittibunchakul et al. [91] concluded that the fermentation activity of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus as well as E. faecium on GOS mainly containing β-1,3 and β-1,6 glycosidic bonds was better than that on GOS containing a single β-1,4 glycosidic bond. This was similar to the conclusion of Cardelle Cobas [92], who found that Bifidobacteria, LAB, and Streptococcus preferred galactose containing β-1,6 glycosidic bonds, but not β-1,4 glycosidic bonds. In conclusion, the growth-inducing ability of probiotics is related to the type of glycosidic bond. Therefore, it is important to understand the structure–activity relationship of NDOs.

3.3. Linear and Branching Structures

The number of substituents in NDOs will affect the microbial fermentation rate. Low-substituted NDOs are preferentially fermented, leading to the accumulation of relatively high-substituted NDOs, indicating that the presence of substituents delays or completely hinders fermentation [93]. The number of substituents in NDOs will affect the microbial composition. It has been reported that the presence of substituents on XOS can affect Bifidobacterium fermentation, resulting in different amounts of lactic acid. Kabel observed that the lactic acid content in unsubstituted XOS was higher than that in substituted XOS [94]. That is, unsubstituted XOS was fermented by more gut microorganisms. In addition, previous studies have described the preference of bifidobacteria for low-substitution XOS fermentation in vitro and in vivo. This indicates that microorganisms may preferentially grow or be inhibited based on the structure of NDOs, altering the composition of the entire microbial community during the fermentation process. Similar observations were described by Englyst et al. [95] for the fermentation of arabinose side chains of pectin, xylan, and arabinogalactan by mixed populations of human fecal bacteria. These results might point to the suggestion that the number of substituents present per oligomer influences the rate of fermentation.
The type of substituents in NDOs will affect the microbial fermentation rate and composition. When fermented in vitro with human feces, the fermentation speeds of linear XOS and arabinose-substituted XOS (AXOS) were faster than that of acetylated XOS (AXOS), and XOS containing the 4-O-methylglucuronic acid group (GlcAmeXOS) was the slowest [96]. On the other hand, Bacteroidetes showed superior growth performance when XOS was used as the sole carbon source compared to AXOS [97]. The process of XOS degradation by Bacteroidetes involves extracellular degradation and debranching of the skeleton, followed by intracellular hydrolysis of the oligomers, which ultimately produces acetate, propionate, and butyrate as the major metabolic end products [98]. It has been proven that microbial degrading enzymes do not easily contact NDOs with a high branch content, resulting in a reduction in the microbial fermentation rate [99].
In addition, the chain length and shape of NDOs are equally important. For example, long-chain IMO has stronger resistance to hydrolysis and degradation in the upper intestine and is more effective than short-chain IMO in stimulating the growth of Bifidobacterium, Prevotella, and Lactobacillus. Bifidobacteria have selective specificity in utilizing FOS with different chain lengths. Generally, short-chain FOS are preferentially fermented, followed by long-chain FOS [100]. Cyclic IMO has been shown to inhibit Streptococcus [80,101,102,103]. Wheat arabinoxylan hydrolysates with more branches can only (partially) be fermented by Bifidobacterium and Bacteroidetes.
From the above viewpoints, the degree of polymerization, substituents, and glycosidic bond type have significant impacts on the fermentation activity of probiotics. However, the reasons for the preference of the microbiota for oligosaccharides lack in-depth investigation, and the metabolic mechanisms of microorganisms for oligosaccharides with different structures need further study.

4. The Impact of Different NDOs on the Diversity of the Gut Microbiota

4.1. T2DM

Diabetes is a chronic disease characterized by hyperglycemia, caused by absolute or relative insufficiency of insulin secretion and impaired utilization. At present, increasing dietary fiber intake is one of the recommendations for patients with T2DM [104]. In recent years, many studies have shown that, including in vivo and in vitro experiments, NDOs can effectively improve diabetes by regulating the gut microbiota to enrich or decrease specific microorganisms. For example, in T2DM rats, the abundance of Firmicutes increased at the phylum level, while the abundance of Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria, and Verrucomicrobia decreased [105]. At the genus level, Bifidobacterium, Roseburia, Faecalibacterium, Bacteroides, and Akkermansia abundance decreased, while that of Desulfovibrio, Oscillibacter, Fusobacterium, Ruminococcus, and Blautia increased [106,107]. Weninger et al. [107] showed that FOS reduced species α-diversity after 16 weeks of treatment in T2DM model rats, that the relative abundance of Bifidobacterium increased, and the relative abundance of Ruminococcus decreased significantly. This result was also found in the later study of FOS and GOS [108], with the difference that Phascolarctobacterium, Coprococcus, and Oscillospira abundance was also decreased.
In addition, NDOs can regulate insulin sensitivity, blood glucose, and lipid metabolism by influencing microorganisms to produce beneficial metabolites, such as SCFAs, amino acid metabolites, and bioactive polypeptides, thereby alleviating the onset and progression of diabetes.
(1) SCFAs are currently the most studied metabolites. According to reports, SCFAs (acetate, propionate, and butyrate) can reduce body weight and hepatic steatosis in mice and reverse high-fat diet (HFD)-induced metabolic abnormalities by reducing the expression of PPAR-γ in the liver and adipose tissue [109]. Similarly, acetate can inhibit fat production in the liver and reduce lipid accumulation in adipose tissue [110]. SCFAs regulate pancreatic insulin secretion, prevent insulin resistance, and increase insulin sensitivity. Propionate has shown important biological functions in in vitro and in vivo studies. It enhances glucose-stimulated insulin release and maintains the function and numbers pancreatic β-cells through several mechanisms, including inhibition of apoptosis, promotion of cell proliferation, and reduction of reverse differentiation of α-cells to β-cells [109]. Therefore, propionate helps to maintain the integrity and stability of pancreatic islet function. In addition, it has been reported that butyrate can improve insulin sensitivity and prevent insulin resistance in mouse models and large population cohorts. Its mechanism of action is related to promoting energy expenditure and stimulating mitochondrial function [111,112]. In addition, SCFAs can inhibit appetite and energy intake by promoting the production of satiety hormones. SCFAs (acetate, propionate, and butyrate) act as signaling molecules to maintain host energy homeostasis by activating G protein-coupled receptors GPR41 and GPR43 to regulate insulin levels and inhibit hepatic gluconeogenesis [113]. It also promotes the secretion of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and peptide YY (PYY). GLP-1 participates in glucose homeostasis primarily by reducing blood glucose levels and improving insulin secretion and resistance. PYY, as a hormone mediating satiety, is secreted from endocrine L cells in the distal intestine after the body intakes enough food. SCFAs play a crucial role in the development of T2DM and can be used as markers of metabolic disorders or homeostasis [114].
(2) Amino acids and their metabolites: the intake of NDOs can produce a variety of amino acid metabolites, which have an impact on blood glucose levels and insulin sensitivity. Some amino acids can be converted into various bioactive metabolites by specific gut microorganisms, such as indole, imidazole propionate, and tyramine. For example, tryptophan (Trp) can be metabolized into indole by various bacteria and can regulate the secretion of GLP-1 [109]. Trp can also be converted into indolepropionic acid (IPA) by some intestinal microorganisms, such as C. caloritolerans, and C. paraputrificum. IPA can significantly reduce fasting blood glucose and insulin levels in rats, as well as homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), improving insulin resistance [115]. It has been reported that fecal metabolic profiling showed that the content of glycogen amino acids, such as proline, serine, and leucine, increased after NDO intervention in T2DM model rats [116]. This result was also confirmed by Chen et al. [117], who found that increases in serine and glutamine could reduce the risk of T2DM progression. In conclusion, NDOs can influence glucose metabolism (especially glucose metabolism), lipid metabolism, and protein and carbohydrate metabolism by regulating the gut microbiota and fecal metabolites [116,117]. On the other hand, hundreds of metabolites of the gut microbiota can be fed back to the brain, which plays a key role in influencing many gastrointestinal processes through the autonomic nervous system and the hypothalamus–pituitary–adrenal axis [118] (Figure 1).

4.2. Obesity

Several studies have revealed the role of the gut microbiota in host physiology, behavior, and metabolism, providing new insights into the pathogenic mechanism of obesity.
Firstly, gut microbial dysbiosis is a common feature in obese patients and obese animal models. Studies have shown that prebiotic oligosaccharides, such as FOS, XOS, GOS, and COS, have an anti-obesity effect by regulating the gut microbiota [49]. Generally, obese individuals have higher proportions of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes. A study on an obese mouse model showed that the administration of NDOs increased the abundance of Bacteroidetes, decreased the abundance of Firmicutes, and changed more than 100 bacterial taxa [119]. Long et al. [120] demonstrated that the XOS diet reduced visceral fat in mice, which was associated with changes in the gut microbiota. Specifically, they observed a significant phylum-wide shift of increased Bacteroidetes and decreased Firmicutes. At family and genus levels, a significant increase in f_S24-7_Unclassified and decreases in Streptococcaceae, 02d06, Coprococcu, Ruminococcus, and Lactococcus were observed. In addition, the increase in Proteobacteria containing Gram-negative lipopolysaccharide (LPS) is also a microbial signature of intestinal dysbacteriosis in mice fed a high-fat diet (HFD) [121]. HFD leads to a sustained increase in plasma LPS levels (i.e., metabolic endotoxemia) as well as a systemic inflammatory response, which play a promoting role in the development of insulin resistance in obese patients. In a study of obese women, Bifidobacterium and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii abundance was increased after intervention with FOS, and it was proven that the changes in the gut microbiota were related to the changes in fat mass, serum LPS level, and metabolism (hippuric acid, lactate, and plasma protein C) [122]. Similarly, Thiennimitr et al. [121] demonstrated that consumption of XOS reduced metabolic endotoxemia in obese mice. The results indicated that NDOs could inhibit the growth of pro-inflammatory bacteria, such as certain species within the Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes phyla (e.g., Ruminococcus, Proteobacteria, and some toxin-producing Clostridium spp.), and promote the growth of beneficial bacteria, such as Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus, and Prevotella, thereby helping to alleviate intestinal inflammation and reduce the risk of obesity. In summary, manipulation of the composition of the gut microbiota through NDOs has been considered as a possible approach for the prevention and treatment of obesity.
The direct cause of obesity is that the rate of fat synthesis exceeds the rate of fat consumption. Therefore, blocking fat synthesis and increasing energy consumption is the most effective strategy to combat obesity. The impact of NDOs on weight loss is mainly attributed to the production of SCFAs by the gut microbiota [123], as they play an important role in regulating food intake and energy metabolism [124]. Acyl CoA carboxylase (ACCase) is a key enzyme in the process of fatty acid synthesis. By inhibiting ACCase activity, the synthesis of fatty acids can be reduced, which helps to prevent obesity. Acetate is catalyzed to acetyl-CoA and butyrate is converted to butyryl-COA as an inhibitor of fatty acid synthesis of rate-limiting enzyme (ACCase) to prevent obesity [125]. Butyrate is enriched by the intake of oligosaccharides, and regulating the ratio of butyrate to acetate in the gut microbiota is a potential strategy for the treatment of obesity. Research has shown that GOS improves lipid metabolism in mice by regulating the synthesis of SCFAs [126]. Dietary supplementation of MOS can inhibit appetite and systemic insulin resistance in obese mice by remodeling gut microbial composition and enhancing the formation of SCFAs [127]. Chen et al. [125] found that XOS changed the gut microbiota and affected the levels of SCFAs. After removing the gut microbiota, SCFA levels were significantly decreased, indicating that XOS indirectly affected the generation of SCFAs by regulating the metabolic activities of the gut microbiota.
NDOs can regulate the synthesis and release of bile acids by affecting the gut microbiota associated with bile acid (BA) metabolism, such as Clostridia, Bacteroidetes, Bacteroides, Lactobacillus, and Bifidobacterium [49]. The G protein-coupled bile acid receptor (TGR5) is one of the key receptors for BA. Under the action of Clostridia, bile acids can be converted to deoxycholic acid (DCA) and lithocholic acid (LCA), which activate TGR5 and enhance the cyclic adenosine monophosphate/protein kinase A (cAMP-PKA) signaling pathway. Activation of TGR5 also promotes conversion of glucagon to GLP-1. Lun et al. [128] revealed the dynamic balance relationship between the gut microbiota and bile acids.
The study found that after COS intervention, the gut microbiota can promote the release of bile acids and then activate TGR5, enhancing brown fat thermogenesis and the TGR5-dominated fatty acid oxidation signaling pathway, thus playing a role in weight loss and lipid reduction. Farnesoid X receptor (FXR) is another key receptor for BA, and several studies have shown that activation of FXR promoted adipose tissue browning and reduced obesity in mice [129]. Mechanistically, activation of FXR induces the release of fibroblast growth factor 15 (FGF15) or FGF19, which reach hepatocytes through the portal vein, thereby inhibiting BA synthesis in the liver [130]. In addition, FGF19 promotes hepatic glycogen synthesis and inhibits hepatic gluconeogenesis. Other studies have shown that GOS significantly reduced the concentration of bile acids in the small intestine, improved glucose metabolism, and influenced lipid absorption by regulating lipid digestion [131,132]. Pectin oligosaccharides have also been shown to mediate cholesterol metabolism through the gut microbiota and their metabolites [133].
The gut microbiota can utilize NDOs to generate nutritional metabolites that act as “messengers” for the bacterial community, influencing host energy homeostasis and regulating host metabolism, thus contributing to the fight against obesity (Figure 1).

4.3. Depression

NDOs may influence the development of depression by regulating the gut microbiota. For example, FOS inhibits depression-associated bacteria such as Anaerostipes, Lachnospiraceae incertae sedis, Oscillibacter, Proteobacteria, and Streptococcus, while effectively promoting the growth of beneficial bacteria with antidepressant properties, such as Cyanobacteria, Lachnospiraceae, Oxalobacter, Desulfonema spp., Peptoclostridium, and Parabacteroides [134]. This was consistent with the study by Burokas et al. on the anti-anxiety properties of FOS [135]. Among them, Cyanobacteria are considered beneficial and are known for producing pharmacologically important metabolites with antidepressant properties. Desulfonema spp. produce H2S as a bacterial energy source. A high level of H2S has shown antidepressive effects in an animal model. The abundance of Oxalobacter increased in rats treated with anti-anxiety drugs [134].
In addition, the combination of FOS and GOS has been shown to reduce depressive symptoms [136]. Specifically, the combination of FOS and GOS increased levels of hippocampal brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and cortical serotonin. At the same time, it reduced elevated corticosterone levels and body temperature. Three weeks of chronic social stress significantly reduced social interaction, whereas FOS+GOS administration protected against this effect. The combination of FOS and GOS also reduced anxiety levels as measured by the open space test and the maze test. At the microbial level, there is evidence that the combination of the two can prevent the change in the ratio of Actinomycetes and Proteobacteria, which is a typical feature of patients with major depression [137]. Chi et al. [134] conducted a comparative analysis of FOS and the standard antidepressant fluoxetine, noting that they had similar effects and that both FOS and fluoxetine promoted the growth of Dialister spp. A recent cohort study reported that Dialister was not found in depressed patients [138]. In other words, FOS and fluoxetine may improve depressive symptoms by regulating the presence of Dialister. In addition, Eubacterium [139], Lactobacillus [139,140], and Oxalobacter [141] are also considered beneficial. Overall, NDOs show antidepressant activity, and part of this effect is achieved by regulating the functional gut microbiota, although the exact mechanism in depressed patients requires further investigation.
The microbiota–gut–brain axis (MGBA) has been considered as a potential pathway for the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases [142] involving the autonomic nervous system (ANS), the enteric nervous system (ENS), and the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis (HPA). Gut microbes can affect the brain through a variety of pathways, including neural, immune, and endocrine pathways, and microbial metabolites, and even stimulate the vagal nerve endings of the gut through neurotransmitters produced by microbes themselves [143]. Neurotransmitters known to be affected by the gut microbiota include SCFAs [144], γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) [145], Trp [146], and serotonin (5-HT) [147]. For example, valeric acid can alleviate intestinal injury, protect neurons, and regulate neurotransmitters [148]. And the increase in butyrate may directly affect the central nervous system [149,150,151]. This view was validated in a pig model, where oral butyrate was found to affect brain metabolism and hippocampal neurogenesis [152]. Therefore, NDO supplementation may inhibit the development of depression by enhancing the formation of SCFAs, including improving cognitive functioning and alleviating anxiety behaviors. Another important pathway is tryptophan → 5-hydroxytryptophan → serotonin. The gut microbiota plays an indispensable role in intestinal tryptophan metabolism. Tryptophan is the only precursor for the synthesis of the neurotransmitter 5-HT, which influences the development of depression [153]. Kelly et al. [154] found that transplantation of feces from depressed patients into recipient animals resulted in these recipient animals showing behavioral and physiological characteristics of depression, and the metabolic pathway of tryptophan was changed. Deng et al. [155] demonstrated that feruloylated oligosaccharides (FOs) exhibited antidepressant and anxiolytic effects by regulating 5-HTP, suggesting that the gut microbiota and microbial metabolism were key mediators supporting protection of the nervous system by FOs. Similarly, Zhang et al. [156] revealed that Morinda officinalis oligosaccharide (MOO) regulated the 5-HT synthesis pathway (Trp → 5-HTP → 5-HT) in the gut microbiota, and the elevated 5-HTP from the gut microbiota was absorbed into the blood and then crossed the blood–brain barrier to improve the 5-HT level in the brain. These findings suggest that the gut microbiota can regulate neurotransmitter levels to affect the development of depression.
Gut microbial dysbiosis may lead to physiological and behavioral disorders by inducing neuroinflammation in the central nervous system. NDOs alter neural function by manipulating the gut microbiota. Currently, the exact mechanisms by which NDOs play a role in depression are unknown, and it is difficult to definitively show how many or which key pathways are responsible for the pathophysiology of depression. However, it is still a very important research direction to regulate the gut microbiota and its metabolites to affect host metabolic pathways, thereby alleviating depressive symptoms (Figure 2).

4.4. Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a common non-specific chronic gastrointestinal inflammatory disease, including Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). The mechanisms by which oligosaccharides alleviate IBD by regulating the gut microbiota mainly include: (1) enriching the diversity of the gut microbiota; (2) protecting the intestinal barrier; and (3) regulating T-cell differentiation and related signaling pathways (Figure 3). Recent studies have verified that breast milk oligosaccharides (HMOs) alleviated sodium disulfide (DSS)-induced ulcerative colitis by improving intestinal barrier function and regulating the gut microbiota [48]. The gut microbiota of colitis model mice treated with unsaturated alginate oligosaccharides (UAOS) was altered, with increased abundance of Firmicutes and Actinomycetes and decreased abundance of Bacteroidetes, and the results showed that the protective effect of UAOS treatment was attributed to the maintenance of mucosal barrier function and suppression of immune injury by regulating the gut microbiota [157].
Increasing evidence shows that functional oligosaccharides, as natural active substances, can effectively improve IBD [100,158].
(1) NDOs can alleviate intestinal inflammation in animals by regulating the gut microbiota. Gut microbial dysbiosis leads to ecological imbalance of the intestinal mucosa, increased production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, and reduced the production of anti-inflammatory cytokines. It was found that the levels of Escherichia coli and Enterococcus faecalis in the feces of patients with IBD were significantly higher than those of normal people, while the abundance of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium was significantly lower [159]. In addition, FOS alleviated intestinal inflammation by promoting the growth of LAB [157]. SCFAs can be absorbed by intestinal epithelial cells (IECs) and inhibit the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-8 and IL-6, thereby alleviating the inflammatory response of colonic epithelial cells. In conclusion, NDOs can alleviate the symptoms of IBD by reducing the abundance of pro-inflammatory bacteria, increasing the abundance of anti-inflammatory bacteria, and promoting the production of SCFAs [160].
(2) Protecting the intestinal barrier. In animal models of IBD, alterations in tight junction proteins (e.g., claudin1, occludin, and ZO-1) and adhesion junction proteins (e.g., E-cadherin and β-catenin) are usually accompanied by increased intestinal permeability and disruption of intestinal structure. In fact, it helps to restore the integrity of the mucosal barrier by regulating gut microbiota diversity [161]. For example, HMOs restored the expression of tight junction proteins and MUC-2, inhibited the production of LPS and LBP, and restored the integrity of the intestinal barrier in colitis model mice [48]. SCFAs may provide energy for IEC, promote epithelial cell proliferation and differentiation, and enhance intestinal barrier function, which may be related to their regulation of the AP-1 signaling pathway [162]. In addition, konjac oligosaccharides increased the concentration of SCFAs in the mice colon, which could promote IL-18 and repair the integrity of IECs [163]. Essential aromatic amino acids (e.g., Trp) can be metabolized into indoles and their derivatives, and these metabolites can activate the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), which is closely associated with the pathogenesis of IBD [164]. This is consistent with the findings of Xia et al., who found that three microbial metabolites of Trp alleviated IBD by improving tight junctions [165].
(3) Regulation of immune homeostasis. Toll-like receptors (TLRs) in intestinal epithelial cells and immune cells recognize and respond to different microbial structural motifs. When pathogens invade, macrophages recognize pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) through TLRs and secrete various proinflammatory cytokines (such as TNF-α, IL-1 β, IL-6, IL-12, etc.). TLR-4 plays a crucial role as a receptor for LPS in the pathogenesis of UC. The number of Treg cells is decreased in patients with IBD. SCFAs can induce the differentiation of T cells into Treg cells, promote the synthesis of anti-inflammatory cytokines to regulate the immune response, and restore the balance of Th1/Th2 and Th17/Treg cells. A study showed that XOS was metabolized into SCFAs, and propionate and butyrate can promote the differentiation of CD4+ T cells into Treg cells, thereby slowing down inflammatory bowel disease [166]. Similarly, feruloylated oligosaccharides (FOs) promoted the percentage of Treg cells and the production of corresponding specific cytokines, thereby regulating the immune homeostasis of Th17/Treg cell in IBD model mice [167]. In addition, the gut microbiota can also stimulate B cells (Breg) to produce inhibitory cytokines (e.g., IL-10 and TGF-β) that affect other immune cells and immunoglobulins (e.g., sIgA). Nowadays, numerous studies have confirmed the effectiveness of oligosaccharides in improving IBD by modulating the gut microbiota, both in animal models and in human experiments [168].

4.5. Constipation

Intestinal motility is regulated by the interaction of the intestinal immune system, intestinal secretions, the intestinal microbiota, and their fermentation products, and impaired intestinal motility can lead to constipation [169]. The increase in the abundance of beneficial bacteria such as Bifidobacterium and Alistipes, as well as the decrease in the abundance of colonic transport-associated bacteria (Oscillospira and Odoribacter), contributes to the relief of constipation [170]. NDOs, such as FOS, IMO, and GOS, can significantly improve defecation frequency and shorten colonic transit time, with few side effects [171]. In addition to the fact that NDOs themselves occupy intestinal volume to increase fecal volume and promote intestinal motility, several studies have shown that NDOs also have significant benefits in alleviating constipation in terms of microbiota remodeling [172,173,174,175]. Specifically, LAB utilize FOS to improve fecal consistency and reduce defecation time [176]. IMO effectively improves fecal consistency and frequency of defecation of subjects, which may be attributed to increased abundance of some microorganisms after colonic fermentation [174,175]. Lotus seed oligosaccharides alleviate constipation by stimulating the growth of beneficial bacteria in the host intestine to promote intestinal motility and defecation [177]. In addition, Zhang et al. demonstrated that COS could improve constipation by regulating the production of intestinal metabolites. This regulatory effect was mainly achieved by reshaping the structure of the gut microbiota in constipated mice [178].
Intake of NDOs increases the amount of substrate for probiotic fermentation and promotes the production of SCFAs. SCFAs, particularly butyrate, acetate, and propionate, are related to stimulation of the growth of colonic epithelial cells, thereby restoring intestinal morphology and increasing intestinal motility to alleviate constipation [179]. Current research suggests that butyrate improves intestinal motility by affecting water and electrolyte metabolism. Similarly, COS relieves constipation by restoring deteriorated water–electrolyte metabolism, including AQP3/4 and ENaC-β/γ expression. Among them, AQP3/4 transports water from the intestinal lumen to the colonic epithelium and ENaC-β/γ mediates the uptake of Na+ into colonic epithelial cells [178,180].
In the current literature, the improvement of constipation by NDOs may be related to the regulation of some metabolic pathways, including lipid metabolism (e.g., sphingolipid metabolism, glycerophospholipid metabolism, and arachidonic acid metabolism), bile acid metabolism, and tryptophan metabolism [169,180]. Sphingolipid metabolism and glycerophospholipid metabolism have been proven to be associated with inflammatory responses in intestinal disorders. Inflammation damages the integrity of the intestinal epithelium, which reduces the secretion of neurotransmitters and hormones, affects gastrointestinal motility, and induces constipation [181]. Previous studies have confirmed that gastrointestinal hormones play roles as neurotransmitters and neuromodulators in the central and peripheral nervous systems [182]. They promote intestinal peristalsis and transportation of contents. Endothelin (ET), somatostatin (SS), and vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) are inhibitory peptide neurotransmitters, while melatonin (MLT) and substance P (SP) are excitatory peptide neurotransmitters. Acetylcholinesterase (AchE) is the primary stimulant of spontaneous contractions in colonic smooth muscle. Therefore, increasing MTL, SP, and AchE levels and inhibiting ET, SS, and VIP can effectively improve intestinal function and promote constipation relief [179]. Meanwhile, tryptophan generation has a significant accelerating effect on gastrointestinal motility. In this pathway, L-tryptophan, 5-HTP, and other intermediate metabolites are substrates produced by neurotransmitters and neuromodulators, which can enhance the sensitivity of visceral nerves in the gastrointestinal tract and stimulate gastrointestinal motility. Several studies have shown that NDOs can relieve constipation by activating the 5-HT signaling pathway [179,183]. In addition, it is equally important that bile acids regulate constipation through the metabolism of intestinal bacteria, such as Bacteroides [178].
In conclusion, NDOs can effectively relieve constipation through a variety of mechanisms, such as promoting intestinal motility, enhancing intestinal barrier function, and regulating immune responses (Figure 4). These findings indicate the potential value of NDOs in the treatment of constipation, further supporting the direction of research to improve constipation by targeting the gut microbiota and its metabolic functions.

5. Conclusions and Perspectives

NDOs, as prebiotics, show remarkable potential in alleviating a variety of human chronic diseases, such as diabetes, depression, constipation, colitis, and obesity, by modulating the gut microbiota to produce beneficial metabolites. However, the relationship between the precise structure of oligosaccharides and their fermentation state in the gut remains unclear, which limits their application.
In the future, it is necessary to study the interaction between the structure of NDOs and the gut microbiota, further explore the specific mechanism of NDOs in different chronic diseases, and compare the effects of different oligosaccharide types. The efficacy and safety of NDOs have been demonstrated in multi-center, large-scale human clinical trials. We can make better use of NDOs to develop new dietary supplement and functional foods to provide effective prevention and treatment strategies for chronic diseases.

Author Contributions

M.Y.: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing—original draft, review & editing. Z.Z.: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing—original draft, review & editing. T.L.: Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing—original draft. H.F.: Formal analysis, Methodology, review & editing. K.C.: Formal analysis, Data curation. Y.L.: Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing—original draft, review & editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing City (No. CSTB2022NSCQ-MSX1634), the Research Project of the State Key Laboratory of Food Science and Resource of Nanchang University (SKLF-ZZB-202321), the Technology System of Pueraria Industry in Jiangxi Province (JXARS-16), and the ‘Leading the Charge with Open Competition’ Project of Shangrao City of Jiangxi Province (K8000403T).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Costello, S.P.; Hughes, P.A.; Waters, O.; Bryant, R.V.; Vincent, A.D.; Blatchford, P.; Katsikeros, R.; Makanyanga, J.; Campaniello, M.A.; Mavrangelos, C.; et al. Effect of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation on 8-Week Remission in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2019, 321, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. El-Salhy, M.; Casen, C.; Valeur, J.; Hausken, T.; Hatlebakk, J.G. Responses to Faecal Microbiota Transplantation in Female and Male Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome. World J. Gastroenterol. 2021, 27, 2219–2237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. He, L.A.; Chen, R.P.; Zhang, B.Z.; Zhang, S.; Khan, B.A.; Zhu, D.; Wu, Z.Z.; Xiao, C.X.; Chen, B.L.; Chen, F.W.; et al. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Treatment of Autoimmune-Mediated Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 930872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Kim, M.S.; Kim, Y.; Choi, H.; Kim, W.; Park, S.; Lee, D.; Kim, D.K.; Kim, H.J.; Choi, H.; Hyun, D.W.; et al. Transfer of a Healthy Microbiota Reduces Amyloid and Tau Pathology in an Alzheimer’s Disease Animal Model. Gut 2020, 69, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Xue, L.F.; Deng, Z.L.; Luo, W.H.; He, X.X.; Chen, Y. Effect of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation on Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 759306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Zhu, X.; Zhao, L.; Lei, L.; Zhu, Y.; Xu, J.; Liu, L. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Ameliorates Abdominal Obesity through Inhibiting Microbiota-Mediated Intestinal Barrier Damage and Inflammation in Mice. Microbiol. Res. 2024, 282, 127654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. de Vos, W.M.; Tilg, H.; Van Hul, M.; Cani, P.D. Gut Microbiome and Health: Mechanistic Insights. Gut 2022, 71, 1020–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Krautkramer, K.A.; Fan, J.; Bäckhed, F. Gut Microbial Metabolites as Multi-Kingdom Intermediates. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 19, 77–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chassaing, B.; Miles-Brown, J.; Pellizzon, M.; Ulman, E.; Ricci, M.; Zhang, L.M.; Patterson, A.D.; Vijay-Kumar, M.; Gewirtz, A.T. Lack of Soluble Fiber Drives Diet-Induced Adiposity in Mice. Am. J. Physiol.-Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 2015, 309, G528–G541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cotillard, A.; Kennedy, S.P.; Kong, L.C.; Prifti, E.; Pons, N.; Le Chatelier, E.; Almeida, M.; Quinquis, B.; Levenez, F.; Galleron, N.; et al. Dietary Intervention Impact on Gut Microbial Gene Richness. Nature 2013, 500, 585–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhu, J.H.; Ren, H.H.; Zhong, H.Z.; Li, X.P.; Zou, Y.Q.; Han, M.; Li, M.L.; Madsen, L.; Kristiansen, K.; Xiao, L. An Expanded Gene Catalog of Mouse Gut Metagenomes. Msphere 2021, 6, e01119-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Chambers, E.S.; Preston, T.; Frost, G.; Morrison, D.J. Role of Gut Microbiota-Generated Short-Chain Fatty Acids in Metabolic and Cardiovascular Health. Curr. Nutr. Rep. 2018, 7, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Depommier, C.; Everard, A.; Druart, C.; Plovier, H.; Van Hul, M.; Vieira-Silva, S.; Falony, G.; Raes, J.; Maiter, D.; Delzenne, N.M.; et al. Supplementation with Akkermansia Muciniphila in Overweight and Obese Human Volunteers: A Proof-of-Concept Exploratory Study. Nat. Med. 2019, 25, 1096–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Wu, D.-T.; Nie, X.-R.; Gan, R.-Y.; Guo, H.; Fu, Y.; Yuan, Q.; Zhang, Q.; Qin, W. In Vitro Digestion and Fecal Fermentation Behaviors of a Pectic Polysaccharide from Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) and Its Impacts on Human Gut Microbiota. Food Hydrocoll. 2021, 114, 106577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Turnbaugh, P.J.; Ley, R.E.; Mahowald, M.A.; Magrini, V.; Mardis, E.R.; Gordon, J.I. An Obesity-Associated Gut Microbiome with Increased Capacity for Energy Harvest. Nature 2006, 444, 1027–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Qin, J.; Li, Y.; Cai, Z.; Li, S.; Zhu, J.; Zhang, F.; Liang, S.; Zhang, W.; Guan, Y.; Shen, D.; et al. A Metagenome-Wide Association Study of Gut Microbiota in Type 2 Diabetes. Nature 2012, 490, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Karlsson, F.H.; Tremaroli, V.; Nookaew, I.; Bergström, G.; Behre, C.J.; Fagerberg, B.; Nielsen, J.; Bäckhed, F. Gut Metagenome in European Women with Normal, Impaired and Diabetic Glucose Control. Nature 2013, 498, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, X.; Yang, Z.; Xu, X.; Jiang, H.; Cai, C.; Yu, G. Odd-Numbered Agaro-Oligosaccharides Alleviate Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Related Colonic Microbiota Dysbiosis in Mice. Carbohyd. Polym. 2020, 240, 116261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wu, H.; Tremaroli, V.; Schmidt, C.; Lundqvist, A.; Olsson, L.M.; Krämer, M.; Gummesson, A.; Perkins, R.; Bergström, G.; Bäckhed, F. The Gut Microbiota in Prediabetes and Diabetes: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study. Cell Metab. 2020, 32, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Loomba, R.; Seguritan, V.; Li, W.Z.; Long, T.; Klitgord, N.; Bhatt, A.; Dulai, P.S.; Caussy, C.; Bettencourt, R.; Highlander, S.K.; et al. Gut Microbiome-Based Metagenomic Signature for Non-Invasive Detection of Advanced Fibrosis in Human Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Cell Metab. 2017, 25, 1054–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Villablanca, E.J.; Selin, K.; Hedin, C.R.H. Mechanisms of Mucosal Healing: Treating Inflammatory Bowel Disease without Immunosuppression? Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2022, 19, 493–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Lloyd-Price, J.; Arze, C.; Ananthakrishnan, A.N.; Schirmer, M.; Avila-Pacheco, J.; Poon, T.W.; Andrews, E.; Ajami, N.J.; Bonham, K.S.; Brislawn, C.J.; et al. Multi-Omics of the Gut Microbial Ecosystem in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. Nature 2019, 569, 655–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Wan, T.T.; Wang, Y.L.; He, K.X.; Zhu, S. Microbial Sensing in the Intestine. Protein Cell 2023, 14, 824–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Rajca, S.; Grondin, V.; Louis, E.; Vernier-Massouille, G.; Grimaud, J.C.; Bouhnik, Y.; Laharie, D.; Dupas, J.L.; Pillant, H.; Picon, L.; et al. Alterations in the Intestinal Microbiome (Dysbiosis) as a Predictor of Relapse after Infliximab Withdrawal in Crohn’s Disease. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2014, 20, 978–986. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  25. Zhang, W.; Lyu, M.Z.; Bessman, N.J.; Xie, Z.L.; Arifuzzaman, M.; Yano, H.; Parkhurst, C.N.; Chu, C.C.; Zhou, L.; Putzel, G.G.; et al. Gut-Innervating Nociceptors Regulate the Intestinal Microbiota to Promote Tissue Protection. Cell 2022, 185, 4170–4189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Ni, J.; Wu, G.D.; Albenberg, L.; Tomov, V.T. Gut Microbiota and IBD: Causation or Correlation? Nat. Rev. Gastro Hepat. 2017, 14, 573–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Imhann, F.; Vila, A.V.; Bonder, M.J.; Fu, J.Y.; Gevers, D.; Visschedijk, M.C.; Spekhorst, L.M.; Alberts, R.; Franke, L.; van Dullemen, H.M.; et al. nterplay of Host Genetics and Gut Microbiota Underlying the Onset and Clinical Presentation of Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Gut 2018, 67, 108–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Liu, L.Q.; Li, M.Z.; Yu, M.L.; Shen, M.Y.; Wang, Q.; Yu, Y.; Xie, J.H. Natural Polysaccharides Exhibit Anti-Tumor Activity by Targeting Gut Microbiota. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 121, 743–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Mutlu, E.; Mikolaitis, S.; Sedghi, S.; Chakradeo, P.S.; Engen, P.; Chlipala, G.; Green, S.; Keshavarzian, A. Mo1795 Dietary Treatment of Crohn’s Disease: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blinded Clinical Trial. Gastroenterology 2016, 150 (Suppl. S1), S778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Morgan, X.C.; Tickle, T.L.; Sokol, H.; Gevers, D.; Devaney, K.L.; Ward, D.V.; Reyes, J.A.; Shah, S.A.; LeLeiko, N.; Snapper, S.B.; et al. Dysfunction of the Intestinal Microbiome in Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Treatment. Genome Biol. 2012, 13, R79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gevers, D.; Kugathasan, S.; Denson, L.A.; Vázquez-Baeza, Y.; Van Treuren, W.; Ren, B.Y.; Schwager, E.; Knights, D.; Song, S.J.; Yassour, M.; et al. The Treatment-Naive Microbiome in New-Onset Crohn’s Disease. Cell Host Microbe 2014, 15, 382–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Willing, B.P.; Dicksved, J.; Halfvarson, J.; Andersson, A.F.; Lucio, M.; Zheng, Z.; Järnerot, G.; Tysk, C.; Jansson, J.K.; Engstrand, L. A Pyrosequencing Study in Twins Shows That Gastrointestinal Microbial Profiles Vary with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Phenotypes. Gastroenterology 2010, 139, 1844–1854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Sharma, R.; Padwad, Y. Probiotic Bacteria as Modulators of Cellular Senescence: Emerging Concepts and Opportunities. Gut Microbes 2020, 11, 335–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jayanama, K.; Theou, O. Effects of Probiotics and Prebiotics on Frailty and Ageing: A Narrative Review. Curr. Clin. Pharmacol. 2020, 15, 183–192. [Google Scholar]
  35. Setbo, E.; Campbell, K.; O’Cuiv, P.; Hubbard, R. Utility of Probiotics for Maintenance or Improvement of Health Status in Older People a Scoping Review. J. Nutr. Health Aging 2019, 23, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Lye, H.S.; Lee, Y.T.; Ooi, S.Y.; Teh, L.K.; Lim, L.N.; Wei, L.K. Modifying Progression of Aging and Reducing the Risk of Neurodegenerative Diseases by Probiotics and Synbiotics. Front. Biosci. 2018, 10, 344–351. [Google Scholar]
  37. Maes, M.; Kubera, M.; Leunis, J.C.; Berk, M. Increased IgA and IgM Responses against Gut Commensals in Chronic Depression: Further Evidence for Increased Bacterial Translocation or Leaky Gut. J. Affect. Disord. 2012, 141, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Simpson, C.A.; Diaz-Arteche, C.; Eliby, D.; Schwartz, O.S.; Simmons, J.G.; Cowan, C.S.M. The Gut Microbiota in Anxiety and Depression—A Systematic Review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2021, 83, 101943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jiang, H.Y.; Zhang, X.; Yu, Z.H.; Zhang, Z.; Deng, M.; Zhao, J.H.; Ruan, B. Altered Gut Microbiota Profile in Patients with Generalized Anxiety Disorder. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2018, 104, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Madan, A.; Thompson, D.; Fowler, J.C.; Ajami, N.J.; Salas, R.; Frueh, B.C.; Bradshaw, M.R.; Weinstein, B.L.; Oldham, J.M.; Petrosino, J.F. The Gut Microbiota Is Associated with Psychiatric Symptom Severity and Treatment Outcome among Individuals with Serious Mental Illness. J. Affect. Disord. 2020, 264, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Naseribafrouei, A.; Hestad, K.; Avershina, E.; Sekelja, M.; Linlokken, A.; Wilson, R.; Rudi, K. Correlation between the Human Fecal Microbiota and Depression. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2014, 26, 1155–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Makki, K.; Deehan, E.C.; Walter, J.; Bäckhed, F. The Impact of Dietary Fiber on Gut Microbiota in Host Health and Disease. Cell Host Microbe 2018, 23, 705–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Sonnenburg, E.D.; Smits, S.A.; Tikhonov, M.; Higginbottom, S.K.; Wingreen, N.S.; Sonnenburg, J.L. Diet-Induced Extinctions in the Gut Microbiota Compound over Generations. Nature 2016, 529, 212–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Wu, Y.; Chen, Y.; Lu, Y.; Hao, H.; Liu, J.; Huang, R. Structural Features, Interaction with the Gut Microbiota and Anti-Tumor Activity of Oligosaccharides. RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 16339–16348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Zhang, N.; Jin, M.; Wang, K.; Zhang, Z.; Shah, N.P.; Wei, H. Functional Oligosaccharide Fermentation in the Gut: Improving Intestinal Health and Its Determinant Factors-a Review. Carbohyd. Polym. 2022, 284, 119043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Divyashri, G.; Karthik, P.; Murthy, T.P.K.; Priyadarshini, D.; Reddy, K.R.; Raghu, A.V.; Vaidyanathan, V.K. Non-Digestible Oligosaccharides-Based Prebiotics to Ameliorate Obesity: Overview of Experimental Evidence and Future Perspectives. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2023, 32, 1993–2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhang, T.; Hu, M.M.; Li, M.L.; Li, C.C.; Miao, M. Effects of Human Milk Oligosaccharides in Infant Health Based on Gut Microbiota Alteration. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2023, 71, 994–1001. [Google Scholar]
  48. Chen, X.; Hu, J.; Yang, J.; Yu, Q.; Chen, Y.; Shen, M.; Rong, L.; Xie, J. Human Milk Oligosaccharide 2′-Fucosyllactose Alleviates Dss-Induced Ulcerative Colitis via Improving Intestinal Barrier Function and Regulating Gut Microbiota. Food Biosci. 2024, 59, 104162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liu, Y.J.; Chen, J.J.; Tan, Q.H.; Deng, X.Y.; Tsa, P.J.; Chen, P.H.; Ye, M.X.; Guo, J.; Su, Z.Q. Nondigestible Oligosaccharides with Anti-Obesity Effects. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 4–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Duffuler, P.; Bhullar, K.S.; Wu, J. Targeting Gut Microbiota in Osteoporosis: Impact of the Microbial-Based Functional Food Ingredients. Food Sci. Hum. Well 2024, 13, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Navarro, D.; Abelilla, J.J.; Stein, H.H. Structures and Characteristics of Carbohydrates in Diets Fed to Pigs: A Review. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2019, 10, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Mussatto, S.I.; Mancilha, I.M. Non-Digestible Oligosaccharides: A Review. Carbohyd. Polym. 2007, 68, 587–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Davani-Davari, D.; Negahdaripour, M.; Karimzadeh, I.; Seifan, M.; Mohkam, M.; Masoumi, S.J.; Berenjian, A.; Ghasemi, Y. Prebiotics: Definition, Types, Sources, Mechanisms, and Clinical Applications. Foods 2019, 8, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Roberfroid, M. Prebiotics: The Concept Revisited. J. Nutr. 2007, 137, 830S–837S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Caselato, V.; Dos Santos, E.; Sgarbieri, V. The Importance of Prebiotics in Functional Foods and Clinical Practice. Food Nutr. Sci. 2011, 2, 22019. [Google Scholar]
  56. Martins, G.N.; Ureta, M.M.; Tymczyszyn, E.E.; Castilho, P.C.; Gomez-Zavaglia, A. Technological Aspects of the Production of Fructo and Galacto-Oligosaccharides. Enzymatic Synthesis and Hydrolysis. Front. Nutr. 2019, 6, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Zhao, C.; Wu, Y.J.; Liu, X.Y.; Liu, B.; Cao, H.; Yu, H.; Sarker, S.D.; Nahar, L.; Xiao, J.B. Functional Properties, Structural Studies and Chemo-Enzymatic Synthesis of Oligosaccharides. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 66, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Al-Sheraji, S.H.; Ismail, A.; Manap, M.Y.; Mustafa, S.; Yusof, R.M.; Hassan, F.A. Prebiotics as Functional Foods: A Review. J. Funct. Foods 2013, 5, 1542–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Precup, G.; Venus, J.; Heiermann, M.; Schneider, R.; Pop, I.D.; Vodnar, D.C. Chemical and Enzymatic Synthesis of Biobased Xylo-Oligosaccharides and Fermentable Sugars from Wheat Straw for Food Applications. Polymers 2022, 14, 1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. 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. F 2011, 10, 2–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Nopvichai, C.; Charoenwongpaiboon, T.; Luengluepunya, N.; Ito, K.; Muanprasat, C.; Pichyangkura, R. Production and Purification of Mannan Oligosaccharide with Epithelial Tight Junction Enhancing Activity. Peerj 2019, 7, e7206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chen, Y.; Liu, Y. Characterization of Galacto-Oligosaccharides Using High-Performance Anion Exchange Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry. J. Sep. Sci. 2021, 44, 2221–2233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Nguyen, T.H.P.; Le, N.A.T.; Tran, P.T.; Bui, D.D.; Nguyen, Q.H. Preparation of Water-Soluble Chitosan Oligosaccharides by Oxidative Hydrolysis of Chitosan Powder with Hydrogen Peroxide. Heliyon 2023, 9, e19565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Milani, C.; Lugli, G.A.; Duranti, S.; Turroni, F.; Mancabelli, L.; Ferrario, C.; Mangifesta, M.; Hevia, A.; Viappiani, A.; Scholz, M.; et al. Bifidobacteria Exhibit Social Behavior through Carbohydrate Resource Sharing in the Gut. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 15782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zúñiga, M.; Yebra, M.J.; Monedero, V. Complex Oligosaccharide Utilization Pathways in Lactobacillus. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2021, 40, 49–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Qin, J.J.; Li, R.Q.; Raes, J.; Arumugam, M.; Burgdorf, K.S.; Manichanh, C.; Nielsen, T.; Pons, N.; Levenez, F.; Yamada, T.; et al. A Human Gut Microbial Gene Catalogue Established by Metagenomic Sequencing. Nature 2010, 464, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sarbini, S.R.; Rastall, R.A. Prebiotics: Metabolism, Structure, and Function. Funct. Food Rev. 2011, 3, 93–106. [Google Scholar]
  68. Singh, R.D.; Muir, J.; Arora, A. Concentration of Xylooligosaccharides with a Low Degree of Polymerization Using Membranes and Their Effect on Bacterial Fermentation. Biofuel Bioprod. Bior 2021, 15, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Huang, C.; Yu, Y.; Li, Z.; Yan, B.; Pei, W.; Wu, H. The Preparation Technology and Application of Xylo-Oligosaccharide as Prebiotics in Different Fields: A Review. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 996811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sanz, M.L.; Gibson, G.R.; Rastall, R.A. Influence of Disaccharide Structure on Prebiotic Selectivity In Vitro. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 5192–5199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Suzuki, N.; Aiba, Y.; Takeda, H.; Fukumori, Y.; Koga, Y. Superiority of 1-Kestose, the Smallest Fructo-Oligosaccharide, to a Synthetic Mixture of Fructo-Oligosaccharides in the Selective Stimulating Activity on Bifidobacteria. Biosci. Microflora 2006, 25, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Böger, M.; van Leeuwen, S.S.; van Bueren, A.L.; Dijkhuizen, L. Structural Identity of Galactooligosaccharide Molecules Selectively Utilized by Single Cultures of Probiotic Bacterial Strains. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 13969–13977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhao, X.; Wang, Q.; Wang, T.; Su, Y.; Huang, C.; Lai, C.; Yong, Q. Evaluation of Prebiotic Ability of Xylo-Oligosaccharide Fractions with Different Polymerization Degrees from Bamboo Shoot Shells. Food Bioprod. Process 2024, 143, 202–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Immerzeel, P.; Falck, P.; Galbe, M.; Adlercreutz, P.; Karlsson, E.N.; Stålbrand, H. Extraction of Water-Soluble Xylan from Wheat Bran and Utilization of Enzymatically Produced Xylooligosaccharides by Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium and Weissella spp. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 56, 321–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Falck, P.; Precha-Atsawanan, S.; Grey, C.; Immerzeel, P.; Stålbrand, H.; Adlercreutz, P.; Karlsson, E.N. Correction to Xylooligosaccharides from Hardwood and Cereal Xylans Produced by a Thermostable Xylanase as Carbon Sources for Lactobacillus Brevis and Bifidobacterium Adolescentis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 7333–7340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Ryan, M.P.; Pembroke, J.T. Brevundimonas Spp: Emerging Global Opportunistic Pathogens. Virulence 2018, 9, 480–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Wang, J.; Sun, B.G.; Cao, Y.P.; Wang, C.T. In Vitro Fermentation of Xylooligosaccharides from Wheat Bran Insoluble Dietary Fiber by Bifidobacteria. Carbohyd. Polym. 2010, 82, 419–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Grimoud, J.; Durand, H.; Courtin, C.; Monsan, P.; Ouarné, F.; Theodorou, V.; Rogues, C. In Vitro Screening of Probiotic Lactic Acid Bacteria and Prebiotic Glucooligosaccharides to Select Effective Synbiotics. Anaerobe 2010, 16, 493–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Kaneko, T.; Kohmoto, T.; Kikuchi, H.; Shiota, M.; Iino, H.; Mitsuoka, T. Effects of Isomaltooligosaccharides with Different Degrees of Polymerization on Human Fecal Bifidobactcria. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 1994, 58, 2288–2290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sanz, M.L.; Côté, G.L.; Gibson, G.R.; Rastall, R.A. Influence of Glycosidic Linkages and Molecular Weight on the Fermentation of Maltose-Based Oligosaccharides by Human Gut Bacteria. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 9779–9784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ladirat, S.E.; Schols, H.A.; Nauta, A.; Schoterman, M.H.C.; Schuren, F.H.J.; Gruppen, H. In vitro fermentation of galacto-oligosaccharides and its specific size-fractions using non-treated and amoxicillin-treated human inoculum. Bioact. Carbohydr. Diet. Fibre 2014, 3, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Goh, Y.J.; Klaenhammer, T.R. Genetic mechanisms of prebiotic oligosaccharide metabolism in probiotic microbes. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 6, 137–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Andersen, J.M.; Barrangou, R.; Abou Hachem, M.; Lahtinen, S.; Goh, Y.J. Transcriptional and functional analysis of galactooligosaccharide uptake by lacS in Lactobacillus acidophilus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 17785–17790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wiater, A.; Wasko, A.; Adamczyk, P.; Gustaw, K.; Pleszczynska, M.; Wlizlo, K.; Skowronek, M.; Tomczyk, M.; Szczodrak, J. Prebiotic Potential of Oligosaccharides Obtained by Acid Hydrolysis of α-(1→3)-Glucan from Laetiporus sulphureus: A Pilot Study. Molecules 2020, 25, 5542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Zeng, M.; Li, N.; Astmann, T.; Oh, J.-H.; van Pijkeren, J.-P.; Pan, X. Facile and Efficient Chemical Synthesis of Gluco-Oligosaccharides (Glcos) with Diverse Glycosidic Linkages as Potential Prebiotics to Promote the Growth of Probiotic Bacteria. Food Res. Int. 2023, 165, 112436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Zeng, M.J.; Oh, J.H.; van Pijkeren, J.P.; Pan, X.J. Selective Utilization of Gluco-Oligosaccharides by Lactobacilli: A Mechanism Study Revealing the Impact of Glycosidic Linkages and Degree of Polymerization on Their Utilization. Int. J. Food Sci. 2024, 89, 523–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Djouzi, Z.; Andlueux, C. Compared Effects of Three Oligosaccharides on Metabolism of Intestinal Microflora in Rats Inoculated with a Human Faecal Flora. Br. J. Nutr. 2007, 78, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Gibson, G.R.; Beatty, E.R.; Wang, X.; Cummings, J.H. Selective Stimulation of Bifidobacteria in the Human Colon by Oligofructose and Inulin. Gastroenterology 1995, 108, 975–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Ito, M.; Deguchi, Y.; Matsumoto, K.; Kimura, M.; Onodera, N.; Yajima, T. Influence of Galactooligosaccharides on the Human Fecal Microflora. J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol. 1993, 39, 635–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Dumortier, V.; Brassart, C.; Bouquelet, S. Purification and properties of α-d-galactosidase from Bifidobacterium bifidum exhibiting a transgalactosylation reaction. Biotechnol. Appl. Biochem. 1994, 19, 341–354. [Google Scholar]
  91. Kittibunchakul, S.; Maischberger, T.; Domig, K.J.; Kneifel, W.; Nguyen, H.M.; Haltrich, D.; Nguyen, H. Fermentability of a Novel Galacto-Oligosaccharide Mixture by Lactobacillus spp. And Bifidobacterium spp. Molecules 2018, 23, 3352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Cardelle-Cobas, A.; Corzo, N.; Olano, A.; Peláez, C.; Requena, T.; Avila, M. Galactooligosaccharides Derived from Lactose and Lactulose: Influence of Structure on Lactobacillus, Streptococcus and Bifidobacterium Growth. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2011, 149, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Kabel, M.A.; Kortenoeven, L.; Schols, H.A.; Voragen, A.G. In Vitro Fermentability of Differently Substituted Xylo-Oligosaccharides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 6205–6210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Palframan, R.J.; Gibson, G.R.; Rastall, R.A. Carbohydrate Preferences of Bifidobacterium Species Isolated from the Human Gut. Curr. Issues Intest. Microbiol. 2003, 4, 71–75. [Google Scholar]
  95. Englyst, H.N.; Hay, S.; MacFarlane, G.T. Polysaccharide breakdown by mixed populations of human faecal bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1987, 95, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ho, A.L.; Kosik, O.; Lovegrove, A.; Charalampopoulos, D.; Rastall, R.A. In Vitro Fermentability of Xylo-Oligosaccharide and Xylo-Polysaccharide Fractions with Different Molecular Weights by Human Faecal Bacteria. Carbohyd. Polym. 2018, 179, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Mendis, M.; Martens, E.C.; Simsek, S. How Fine Structural Differences of Xylooligosaccharides and Arabinoxylooligosaccharides Regulate Differential Growth of Bacteroides Species. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 8398–8405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Chassard, C.; Goumy, V.; Leclerc, M.; Del’homme, C.; Bernalier-Donadille, A. Characterization of the Xylan-Degrading Microbial Community from Human Faeces. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2007, 61, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Xu, H.; Reuhs, B.L.; Cantu-Jungles, T.M.; Tuncil, Y.E.; Kaur, A.; Terekhov, A.; Martens, E.C.; Hamaker, B.R. Corn Arabinoxylan Has a Repeating Structure of Subunits of High Branch Complexity with Slow Gut Microbiota Fermentation. Carbohyd. Polym. 2022, 289, 119435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Yang, X.; Zeng, D.; Li, C.; Yu, W.; Xie, G.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, W. Therapeutic Potential and Mechanism of Functional Oligosaccharides in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Review. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2023, 12, 2135–2150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kobayashi, M.; Funane, K.; Oguma, T. Inhibition of Dextran and Mutan Synthesis by Cycloisomaltooligosaccharides. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 1995, 59, 1861–1865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Sorndech, W.; Nakorn, K.N.; Tongta, S.; Blennow, A. Isomalto-Oligosaccharides: Recent Insights in Production Technology and Their Use for Food and Medical Applications. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 95, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Kaplan, H.; Hutkins, R.W. Fermentation of Fructooligosaccharides by Lactic Acid Bacteria and Bifidobacteria. Appl. Environ. Microb. 2000, 66, 2682–2684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Qiang, X.; YongLie, C.; QianBing, W. Health Benefit Application of Functional Oligosaccharides. Carbohyd. Polym. 2009, 77, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Song, Y.; Wu, M.S.; Tao, G.; Lu, M.W.; Lin, J.; Huang, J.Q. Feruloylated Oligosaccharides and Ferulic Acid Alter Gut Microbiome to Alleviate Diabetic Syndrome. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Jana, U.K.; Kango, N.; Pletschke, B. Hemicellulose-Derived Oligosaccharides: Emerging Prebiotics in Disease Alleviation. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 670817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Weninger, S.N.; Ding, A.E.L.; Browne, E.N.; Frost, M.; Schiro, G.; Laubitz, D.; Duca, F.A. Longitudinal Characterization of the Gut Microbiota in the Diabetic Zdsd Rat Model and Therapeutic Potential of Oligofructose. Metabolites 2023, 13, 660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Liu, F.T.; Li, P.; Chen, M.X.; Luo, Y.M.; Prabhakar, M.; Zheng, H.M.; He, Y.; Qi, Q.; Long, H.Y.; Zhang, Y.; et al. Fructooligosaccharide (FOS) and Galactooligosaccharide (GOS) Increase Bifidobacterium but Reduce Butyrate Producing Bacteria with Adverse Glycemic Metabolism in Healthy Young Population. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 111789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Du, L.; Li, Q.; Yi, H.; Kuang, T.; Tang, Y.; Fan, G. Gut microbiota-derived metabolites as key actors in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2022, 149, 112839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Yamashita, H.; Maruta, H.; Jozuka, M.; Kimura, R.; Iwabuchi, H.; Yamato, M.; Saito, T.; Fujisawa, K.; Takahashi, Y.; Kimoto, M.; et al. Effects of acetate on lipid metabolism in muscles and adipose tissues of type 2 diabetic Otsuka Long-Evans Tokushima Fatty (OLETF) rats. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2009, 73, 570–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Gao, Z.G.; Yin, J.; Zhang, J.; Ward, R.E.; Martin, R.J.; Lefevre, M.; Cefalu, W.T.; Ye, J.P. Butyrate improves insulin sensitivity and increases energy expenditure in mice. Diabetes 2009, 58, 1509–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Sanna, S.; van Zuydam, N.R.; Mahajan, A.; Kurilshikov, A.; Vich Vila, A.; Võsa, U.; Mujagic, Z.; Masclee, A.A.; Jonkers, D.M.; Oosting, M.; et al. Causal relationships among the gut microbiome, short-chain fatty acids and metabolic diseases. Nat. Genet. 2019, 51, 600–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Blaak, E.E.; Canfora, E.E.; Theis, S.; Frost, G.; Groen, A.K.; Mithieux, G.; Nauta, A.; Scott, K.; Stahl, B.; van Harsselaar, J.; et al. Short Chain Fatty Acids in Human Gut and Metabolic Health. Benef. Microbes 2020, 11, 411–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Hu, J.M.; Lin, S.L.; Zheng, B.D.; Cheung, P.C.K. Short-Chain Fatty Acids in Control of Energy Metabolism. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. 2018, 58, 1243–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Abildgaard, A.; Elfving, B.; Hokland, M.; Wegener, G.; Lund, S. The microbial metabolite indole-3-propionic acid improves glucose metabolism in rats, but does not affect behavior. Arch. Physiol. Biochem. 2018, 124, 306–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Liu, H.; Zhang, Z.; Li, J.P.; Liu, W.; Warda, M.; Cui, B.; Abd El-Aty, A.M. Oligosaccharides Derived from Lycium Barbarum Ameliorate Glycolipid Metabolism and Modulate the Gut Microbiota Community and the Faecal Metabolites in a Type 2 Diabetes Mouse Model: Metabolomic Bioinformatic Analysis. Food Funct. 2022, 13, 5416–5429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Chen, Y.; Wu, W.; Ni, X.; Farag, M.A.; Capanoglu, E.; Zhao, C. Regulatory Mechanisms of the Green Alga Ulva Lactuca Oligosaccharide via the Metabolomics and Gut Microbiome in Diabetic Mice. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2022, 5, 1127–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Gupta, A.; Osadchiy, V.; Mayer, E.A. Brain-Gut-Microbiome Interactions in Obesity and Food Addiction. Nat. Rev. Gastro Hepat. 2020, 17, 655–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Everard, A.; Lazarevic, V.; Derrien, M.; Girard, M.; Muccioli, G.M.; Neyrinck, A.M.; Possemiers, S.; Van Holle, A.; François, P.; de Vos, W.M.; et al. Responses of Gut Microbiota and Glucose and Lipid Metabolism to Prebiotics in Genetic Obese and Diet-Induced Leptin-Resistant Mice. Diabetes 2011, 60, 2775–2786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Long, J.; Yang, J.; Henning, S.M.; Woo, S.L.; Hsu, M.; Chan, B.; Heber, D.; Li, Z. Xylooligosaccharide Supplementation Decreases Visceral Fat Accumulation and Modulates Cecum Microbiome in Mice. J. Funct. Foods 2019, 52, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Thiennimitr, P.; Yasom, S.; Tunapong, W.; Chunchai, T.; Wanchai, K.; Pongchaidecha, A.; Lungkaphin, A.; Sirilun, S.; Chaiyasut, C.; Chattipakorn, N.; et al. Lactobacillus Paracasei Hii01, Xylooligosaccharides, and Synbiotics Reduce Gut Disturbance in Obese Rats. Nutrition 2018, 54, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Dewulf, E.M.; Cani, P.D.; Claus, S.P.; Fuentes, S.; Puylaert, P.G.B.; Neyrinck, A.M.; Bindels, L.B.; de Vos, W.M.; Gibson, G.R.; Thissen, J.P.; et al. Insight into the Prebiotic Concept: Lessons from an Exploratory, Double Blind Intervention Study with Inulin-Type Fructans in Obese Women. Gut 2013, 62, 1112–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Zhang, S.M.; Zhao, J.W.; Xie, F.; He, H.X.; Johnston, L.J.; Dai, X.F.; Wu, C.D.; Ma, X. Dietary Fiber-Derived Short-Chain Fatty Acids: A Potential Therapeutic Target to Alleviate Obesity-Related Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Obes. Rev. 2021, 22, e13316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Canfora, E.E.; Jocken, J.W.; Blaak, E.E. Short-Chain Fatty Acids in Control of Body Weight and Insulin Sensitivity. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 2015, 11, 577–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Chen, K.; Hu, M.; Tang, M.; Gao, C.; Wang, H.; Man, S.; Lu, F. Oligosaccharide and Short-Chain Fatty Acid: A Double-Edged Sword in Obese Mice by Regulating Food Intake and Fat Synthesis. Food Res. Int. 2022, 159, 111619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Kong, S.; Huang, X.; Cao, H.; Bai, Y.; Che, Q.; Nie, H.; Su, Z. Anti-Obesity Effects of Galacto-Oligosaccharides in Obese Rats. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2022, 917, 174728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Liu, Q.; Xi, Y.; Wang, Q.; Liu, J.; Li, P.; Meng, X.; Liu, K.; Chen, W.; Liu, X.; Liu, Z. Mannan Oligosaccharide Attenuates Cognitive and Behavioral Disorders in the 5xfad Alzheimer’s Disease Mouse Model via Regulating the Gut Microbiota-Brain Axis. Brain Behav. Immun. 2021, 95, 330–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Lun, W.; Zhou, J.; Bai, Y.; Che, Q.; Cao, H.; Guo, J.; Su, Z. Chitosan Oligosaccharide Activates Brown Adipose Tissue by Modulating the Gut Microbiota and Bile Acid Pathways Based on Faecal Microbiota Transplantation. J. Funct. Foods 2023, 108, 105731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Fang, S.; Suh, J.M.; Reilly, S.M.; Yu, E.; Osborn, O.; Lackey, D.; Yoshihara, E.; Perino, A.; Jacinto, S.; Lukasheva, Y.; et al. Intestinal Fxr Agonism Promotes Adipose Tissue Browning and Reduces Obesity and Insulin Resistance. Nat. Med. 2015, 21, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Shapiro, H.; Kolodziejczyk, A.A.; Halstuch, D.; Elinav, E. Bile Acids in Glucose Metabolism in Health and Disease. J. Exp. Med. 2018, 215, 383–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Calderon, G.; McRae, A.; Rievaj, J.; Davis, J.; Zandvakili, I.; Linker-Nord, S.; Burton, D.; Roberts, G.; Reimann, F.; Gedulin, B.; et al. Ileo-Colonic Delivery of Conjugated Bile Acids Improves Glucose Homeostasis via Colonic Glp-1-Producing Enteroendocrine Cells in Human Obesity and Diabetes. Ebiomedicine 2020, 55, 102759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Dai, Z.; Feng, S.; Liu, A.B.; Wang, H.; Zeng, X.; Yang, C.S. Protective Effects of α-Galacto-Oligosaccharides against a High-Fat/Western-Style Diet-Induced Metabolic Abnormalities in Mice. Food Funct. 2019, 10, 3660–3670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Hu, H.; Zhang, S.; Liu, F.; Zhang, P.; Muhammad, Z.; Pan, S. Role of the Gut Microbiota and Their Metabolites in Modulating the Cholesterol-Lowering Effects of Citrus Pectin Oligosaccharides in C57bl/6 Mice. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 11922–11930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Chi, L.; Khan, I.; Lin, Z.; Zhang, J.; Lee, M.Y.S.; Leong, W.; Hsiao, W.L.W.; Zheng, Y. Fructo-Oligosaccharides from Morinda Officinalis Remodeled Gut Microbiota and Alleviated Depression Features in a Stress Rat Model. Phytomedicine 2020, 67, 153157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Burokas, A.; Arboleya, S.; Moloney, R.D.; Peterson, V.L.; Murphy, K.; Clarke, G.; Stanton, C.; Dinan, T.G.; Cryan, J.F. Targeting the microbiota-gut-brain axis: Prebioticshave anxiolytic and antidepressant-like effects and reverse the impact of chronicstress in mice. Biol. Psychiatry 2017, 82, 472–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Varesi, A.; Campagnoli, L.I.M.; Chirumbolo, S.; Candiano, B.; Carrara, A.; Ricevuti, G.; Esposito, C.; Pascale, A. The Brain-Gut-Microbiota Interplay in Depression: A Key to Design Innovative Therapeutic Approaches. Pharmacol. Res. 2023, 192, 106799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Jiang, H.Y.; Ling, Z.X.; Zhang, Y.H.; Mao, H.J.; Ma, Z.P.; Yin, Y.; Wang, W.H.; Tang, W.X.; Tan, Z.L.; Shi, J.F.; et al. Altered Fecal Microbiota Composition in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder. Brain Behav. Immun. 2015, 48, 186–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Yong, J.P.; Lu, C.Z.; Huang, S.J.; Wu, X.Y. Chemical Components Isolated from the Roots of Morinda Officinalis. Chem. Nat. Compd. 2015, 51, 548–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Barcenilla, A.; Pryde, S.E.; Martin, J.C.; Duncan, S.H.; Stewart, C.S.; Henderson, C.; Flint, H.J. Phylogenetic Relationships of Butyrate-Producing Bacteria from the Human Gut. Appl. Environ. Microb. 2000, 66, 1654–1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Kunze, W.A.; Mao, Y.K.; Wang, B.X.; Huizinga, J.D.; Ma, X.L.; Forsythe, P.; Bienenstock, J. Lactobacillus Reuteri Enhances Excitability of Colonic Ah Neurons by Inhibiting Calcium-Dependent Potassium Channel Opening. J. Cell Mol. Med. 2009, 13, 2261–2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Li, X.S.; Ellis, M.L.; Knight, J. Oxalobacter Formigenes Colonization and Oxalate Dynamics in a Mouse Model. Appl. Environ. Microb. 2015, 81, 5048–5054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Zhu, X.Q.; Han, Y.; Du, J.; Liu, R.Z.; Jin, K.T.; Yi, W. Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis and the Central Nervous System. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 53829–53838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Cryan, J.F.; Dinan, T.G. Mind-Altering Microorganisms: The Impact of the Gut Microbiota on Brain and Behaviour. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2012, 13, 701–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Baxter, N.T.; Schmidt, A.W.; Venkataraman, A.; Kim, K.S.; Waldron, C.; Schmidt, T.M. Dynamics of Human Gut Microbiota and Short-Chain Fatty Acids in Response to Dietary Interventions with Three Fermentable Fibers. Mbio 2019, 10, e02566-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Barrett, E.; Ross, R.P.; O’Toole, P.W.; Fitzgerald, G.F.; Stanton, C. γ-Aminobutyric acid production by culturable bacteria from the human intestine. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2012, 113, 411–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Gao, K.; Pi, Y.; Mu, C.L.; Farzi, A.; Liu, Z.; Zhu, W.Y. Increasing Carbohydrate Availability in the Hindgut Promotes Hypothalamic Neurotransmitter Synthesis: Aromatic Amino Acids Linking the Microbiota-Brain Axis. J. Neurochem. 2019, 149, 641–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Hata, T.; Asano, Y.; Yoshihara, K.; Kimura-Todani, T.; Miyata, N.; Zhang, X.T.; Takakura, S.; Aiba, Y.; Koga, Y.; Sudo, N. Regulation of Gut Luminal Serotonin by Commensal Microbiota in Mice. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0180745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Min, Q.X.; Wang, Y.; Jin, T.C.; Zhu, L.; Wu, X.Y.; Li, Y.K.; Wang, Y.J.; Xu, N. Analysis of Intestinal Short-Chain Fatty Acid Metabolism Profile after Probiotics and Glp-1 Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Front. Endocrinol. 2022, 13, 892127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Donohoe, D.R.; Garge, N.; Zhang, X.X.; Sun, W.; O’Connell, T.M.; Bunger, M.K.; Bultman, S.J. The Microbiome and Butyrate Regulate Energy Metabolism and Autophagy in the Mammalian Colon. Cell Metab. 2011, 13, 517–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Wolever, T.M.S.; Chiasson, J.L. Acarbose Raises Serum Butyrate in Human Subjects Withimpaired Glucose Tolerance. Br. J. Nutr. 2000, 84, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Al-Khafaji, A.H.; Jepsen, S.D.; Christensen, K.R.; Vigsnæs, L.K. The Potential of Human Milk Oligosaccharides to Impact the Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis through Modulation of the Gut Microbiota. J. Funct. Foods 2020, 74, 104176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Val-Laillet, D.; Guérin, S.; Coquery, N.; Nogret, I.; Formal, M.; Romé, V.; Le Normand, L.; Meurice, P.; Randuineau, G.; Guilloteau, P.; et al. Oral Sodium Butyrate Impacts Brain Metabolism and Hippocampal Neurogenesis, with Limited Effects on Gut Anatomy and Function in Pigs. FASEB J. 2018, 32, 2160–2171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Sun, Y.; Cheng, L.; Zeng, X.; Zhang, X.; Liu, Y.; Wu, Z.; Weng, P. The Intervention of Unique Plant Polysaccharides—Dietary Fiber on Depression from the Gut-Brain Axis. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 170, 336–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Kelly, J.R.; Borre, Y.; O’Brien, C.; Patterson, E.; El Aidy, S.; Deane, J.; Kennedy, P.J.; Beers, S.; Scott, K.; Moloney, G.; et al. Transferring the Blues: Depression-Associated Gut Microbiota Induces Neurobehavioural Changes in the Rat. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2016, 82, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Deng, L.; Zhou, X.; Tao, G.; Hao, W.; Wang, L.; Lan, Z.; Song, Y.; Wu, M.; Huang, J.Q. Ferulic Acid and Feruloylated Oligosaccharides Alleviate Anxiety and Depression Symptom via Regulating Gut Microbiome and Microbial Metabolism. Food Res. Int. 2022, 162, 111887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Zhang, Z.W.; Gao, C.S.; Zhang, H.; Yang, J.; Wang, Y.P.; Pan, L.B.; Yu, H.; He, C.Y.; Luo, H.B.; Zhao, Z.X.; et al. Morinda Officinalis Oligosaccharides Increase Serotonin in the Brain and Ameliorate Depression via Promoting 5-Hydroxytryptophan Production in the Gut Microbiota. Acta Pharm. Sin. B 2022, 12, 3298–3312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. He, N.; Yang, Y.; Wang, H.; Liu, N.; Yang, Z.; Li, S. Unsaturated Alginate Oligosaccharides (UAOS) Protects against Dextran Sulfate Sodium-Induced Colitis Associated with Regulation of Gut Microbiota. J. Funct. Foods 2021, 83, 104536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Tester, R.F.; Al-Ghazzewi, F.H. Beneficial Health Characteristics of Native and Hydrolysed Konjac (Amorphophallus konjac) Glucomannan. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 3283–3291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Zhong, Y.; Zheng, C.; Zheng, J.H.; Xu, S.C. The Relationship between Intestinal Flora Changes and Osteoporosis in Rats with Inflammatory Bowel Disease and the Improvement Effect of Probiotics. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2020, 24, 5697–5702. [Google Scholar]
  160. Huang, G.; Ye, L.; Du, G.; Huang, Y.; Wu, Y.; Ge, S.; Yang, Z.; Zhu, G. Effects of Curcumin Plus Soy Oligosaccharides on Intestinal Flora of Rats with Ulcerative Colitis. Cell Mol. Biol. 2017, 63, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Li, Y.; Wu, L.; Yong, Y.; Niu, X.; Gao, Y.; Zhou, Q.; Xie, H.; Liu, X.; Li, Y.; Yu, Z.; et al. Enhancing Gut Barrier Integrity: Upregulation of Tight Junction Proteins by Chitosan Oligosaccharide through the ERK1/2 Signaling Pathway. Nutrition 2024, 124, 112428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Venegas, D.P.; De la Fuente, M.K.; Landskron, G.; González, M.J.; Quera, R.; Dijkstra, G.; Harmsen, H.J.M.; Faber, K.N.; Hermoso, M.A. Short Chain Fatty Acids (SCFAs)-Mediated Gut Epithelial and Immune Regulation and Its Relevance for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. Front. Immunol. 2019, 10, 00277. [Google Scholar]
  163. Guo, X.Y.; Liu, X.J.; Hao, J.Y. Gut Microbiota in Ulcerative Colitis: Insights on Pathogenesis and Treatment. J. Dig. Dis. 2020, 21, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Xia, B.; Liu, X.; Li, Z.; Ren, J.; Liu, X. The Effects of Microbiota-Targeted Approaches in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Probiotics, Probiotic Foods, and Prebiotics. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2023, 49, 100956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Scott, S.A.; Fu, J.J.; Chang, P.V. Microbial Tryptophan Metabolites Regulate Gut Barrier Function via the Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 19376–19387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Youssef, I.M.; Khalil, H.A.; Shakoori, A.M.; Bagadood, R.M.; Alyahyawi, A.Y.; Alhazzaa, R.A.; Fakiha, K.G.; Nasr, S.; Abo-Samra, M.A.; Hassan, M.S.; et al. Immune Response, Hematological Traits, Biochemical Blood Parameters, and Histological Status of Laying Hens Influenced by Dietary Chitosan- Oligosaccharides. Poult. Sci. 2023, 102, 102834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Xia, X.C.; Zhu, L.Q.; Lei, Z.W.; Song, Y.Q.; Tang, F.; Yin, Z.; Wang, J.; Huang, J.Q. Feruloylated Oligosaccharides Alleviate Dextran Sulfate Sodium-Induced Colitis In Vivo. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 9522–9531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Suwannaporn, P.; Thepwong, K.; Tester, R.; Al-Ghazzewi, F.; Piggott, J.; Shen, N.; Chen, Z.; Chen, F.; Yang, J.; Zhang, D.; et al. Tolerance and Nutritional Therapy of Dietary Fibre from Konjac Glucomannan Hydrolysates for Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). Bioact. Carbohydr. Diet. Fibre 2013, 2, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Mayer, E.A.; Savidge, T.; Shulman, R.J. Brain-Gut Microbiome Interactions and Functional Bowel Disorders. Gastroenterology 2014, 146, 1500–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Parthasarathy, G.; Chen, J.; Chen, X.F.; Chia, N.; O’Connor, H.M.; Wolf, P.G.; Gaskins, H.R.; Bharucha, A.E. Relationship between Microbiota of the Colonic Mucosa vs. Feces and Symptoms, Colonic Transit, and Methane Production in Female Patients with Chronic Constipation. Gastroenterology 2016, 150, 367–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Kwon, J.I.; Park, Y.; Noh, D.O.; Suh, H.J.; Han, S.H. Complex-Oligosaccharide Composed of Galacto-Oligosaccharide and Lactulose Ameliorates Loperamide-Induced Constipation in Rats. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2018, 27, 781–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Wang, L.; Pan, M.; Li, D.; Yin, Y.; Jiang, T.; Fang, S.; Wang, G.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, H.; Chen, W. Metagenomic Insights into the Effects of Oligosaccharides on the Microbial Composition of Cecal Contents in Constipated Mice. J. Funct. Foods 2017, 38, 486–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Vandeputte, D.; Falony, G.; Vieira-Silva, S.; Tito, R.Y.; Joossens, M.; Raes, J. Stool Consistency Is Strongly Associated with Gut Microbiota Richness and Composition, Enterotypes and Bacterial Growth Rates. Gut 2016, 65, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Chen, H.L.; Lu, Y.H.; Lin, J.J.; Ko, L.Y. Effects of Isomalto-Oligosaccharides on Bowel Functions and Indicators of Nutritional Status in Constipated Elderly Men. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 2001, 20, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Yen, C.H.; Tseng, Y.H.; Kuo, Y.W.; Lee, M.C.; Chen, H.L. Long-Term Supplementation of Isomalto-Oligosaccharides Improved Colonic Microflora Profile, Bowel Function, and Blood Cholesterol Levels in Constipated Elderly People-a Placebo-Controlled, Diet-Controlled Trial. Nutrition 2011, 27, 445–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Zhang, X.; Zheng, J.; Jiang, N.; Sun, G.; Bao, X.; Kong, M.; Cheng, X.; Lin, A.; Liu, H. Modulation of Gut Microbiota and Intestinal Metabolites by Lactulose Improves Loperamide-Induced Constipation in Mice. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2021, 158, 105676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Su, H.; Chen, J.; Miao, S.; Deng, K.; Liu, J.; Zeng, S.; Zheng, B.; Lu, X. Lotus Seed Oligosaccharides at Various Dosages with Prebiotic Activity Regulate Gut Microbiota and Relieve Constipation in Mice. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2019, 134, 110838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Zhang, X.; Yang, H.; Zheng, J.; Jiang, N.; Sun, G.; Bao, X.; Lin, A.; Liu, H. Chitosan Oligosaccharides Attenuate Loperamide-Induced Constipation through Regulation of Gut Microbiota in Mice. Carbohyd. Polym. 2021, 253, 117218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Liu, X.; Chen, S.; Yan, Q.; Li, Y.; Jiang, Z. Effect of Konjac Mannan Oligosaccharides on Diphenoxylate-Induced Constipation in Mice. J. Funct. Foods 2019, 57, 399–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Zhang, X.; Hu, B.; Sun, G.; Zheng, J.; Hu, H.; Yang, H.; Cheng, X.; Lin, A.; Liu, H. Plasma Metabolomic Profiles Reveal Regulatory Effect of Chitosan Oligosaccharides on Loperamide-Induced Constipation in Mice. J. Pharm. Biomed. 2022, 211, 114590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Yang, Z.; Ye, S.; Xu, Z.; Su, H.; Tian, X.; Han, B.; Shen, B.; Liao, Q.; Xie, Z.; Hong, Y. Dietary Synbiotic Ameliorates Constipation through the Modulation of Gut Microbiota and Its Metabolic Function. Food Res. Int. 2021, 147, 110569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Ramos, I.; Nuche-Berenguer, B.; Moreno, P.; Mantey, S.A.; Iordanskaia, T.; Jensen, R.T. Presence of the P21-activated kinase, PAK4, in pancreatic acinar cells and its activation by numerous gastrointestinal hormones and growth factors. Gastroenterology 2017, 152, S902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Kendig, D.M.; Grider, J.R. Serotonin and Colonic Motility. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2015, 27, 899–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. The effect of NDOs on T2DM and obesity by regulating gut microbiota composition and metabolites. (1) SCFAs: SCFAs can promote the release of PYY and GLP-1 from intestinal endocrine L cells, increase energy consumption of adipose tissue, and reduce lipid accumulation and inflammation. In the liver, SCFAs affect the generation of fat and glucose. In the pancreas, SCFAs promote insulin secretion. SCFAs can transmit neural signals to maintain homeostasis of systemic functions. (2) Amino acids: amino acids are converted by intestinal bacteria into other bioactive metabolites, such as indole, which can stimulate L cells to secrete GLP-1, thereby promoting insulin secretion and inhibiting glucagon secretion. (3) Bile acids (BAs): BAs are converted to secondary bile acids through uncoupling, dehydroxylation, and epimerization by intestinal bacteria. BAs act on two receptors (FXR and TGR5) to regulate glucose homeostasis. In addition, the activation of FXR by BAs promotes the release of FGF15/19, which promotes hepatic glycogen synthesis and reduces BA synthesis and gluconeogenesis in the liver.
Figure 1. The effect of NDOs on T2DM and obesity by regulating gut microbiota composition and metabolites. (1) SCFAs: SCFAs can promote the release of PYY and GLP-1 from intestinal endocrine L cells, increase energy consumption of adipose tissue, and reduce lipid accumulation and inflammation. In the liver, SCFAs affect the generation of fat and glucose. In the pancreas, SCFAs promote insulin secretion. SCFAs can transmit neural signals to maintain homeostasis of systemic functions. (2) Amino acids: amino acids are converted by intestinal bacteria into other bioactive metabolites, such as indole, which can stimulate L cells to secrete GLP-1, thereby promoting insulin secretion and inhibiting glucagon secretion. (3) Bile acids (BAs): BAs are converted to secondary bile acids through uncoupling, dehydroxylation, and epimerization by intestinal bacteria. BAs act on two receptors (FXR and TGR5) to regulate glucose homeostasis. In addition, the activation of FXR by BAs promotes the release of FGF15/19, which promotes hepatic glycogen synthesis and reduces BA synthesis and gluconeogenesis in the liver.
Foods 13 02157 g001
Figure 2. The gut microbiota and the brain communicate in both directions through the immune system, intestinal endocrine signals, neurotransmitters, amino acids, BAs, SCFAs, the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, etc.
Figure 2. The gut microbiota and the brain communicate in both directions through the immune system, intestinal endocrine signals, neurotransmitters, amino acids, BAs, SCFAs, the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, etc.
Foods 13 02157 g002
Figure 3. NDOs alleviate IBD progression by regulating the gut microbiota. (1) NDOs promote the proliferation of beneficial bacteria and correct intestinal dysbiosis in IBD patients. (2) SCFAs can improve the barrier function and reduce the permeability of the intestinal barrier by affecting the maturation of intestinal epithelial cells (IECs) and regulating the expression of tight junction proteins (claudin1, occludin, and ZO-1). SCFAs also affect the interaction between immune cells (T cells, B cells), regulate the expression of pro-inflammatory/anti-inflammatory cytokines, and reduce intestinal inflammation. (3) Microbial metabolites of Trp regulate the expression of adhesion junction proteins (E-cadherin and β-catenin) and maintain the integrity of the intestinal barrier.
Figure 3. NDOs alleviate IBD progression by regulating the gut microbiota. (1) NDOs promote the proliferation of beneficial bacteria and correct intestinal dysbiosis in IBD patients. (2) SCFAs can improve the barrier function and reduce the permeability of the intestinal barrier by affecting the maturation of intestinal epithelial cells (IECs) and regulating the expression of tight junction proteins (claudin1, occludin, and ZO-1). SCFAs also affect the interaction between immune cells (T cells, B cells), regulate the expression of pro-inflammatory/anti-inflammatory cytokines, and reduce intestinal inflammation. (3) Microbial metabolites of Trp regulate the expression of adhesion junction proteins (E-cadherin and β-catenin) and maintain the integrity of the intestinal barrier.
Foods 13 02157 g003
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the mechanism of action of NDOs in relieving constipation.
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the mechanism of action of NDOs in relieving constipation.
Foods 13 02157 g004
Table 1. Basic information of the main nondigestible oligosaccharides (NDOs).
Table 1. Basic information of the main nondigestible oligosaccharides (NDOs).
NameGlucosidic
Linkage
MonosaccharidesDPPreparationNatural
Sources
References
FOSβ-1,2Fructose
Glucose
2–5Enzyme degradation,
microbial Fermentation
Onions,
chicory,
wheat
[55,56]
IMOα-1,3
α-1,4
α-1,6
Glucose2–5Enzyme synthesis, enzymatic hydrolysis,
enzymatic conversion
Starch,
corn, milk,
wheat, bran
[57,58]
XOSβ-1,4Xylose2–7Enzymatic conversionShoots,
corn cob,
wheat
straw
[59,60]
MOSα-1,2
α-1,6
Mannose
Glucose
2–10Enzymatic hydrolysisCarrageenan
konjac
[57,61]
GOSβ-1,4
β-1,6
Galactose
Glucose
3–6Enzymatic conversionLactose[55,62]
SOSα-1,2
α-1,6
Galactose, Glucose
Fructose
2–5ExtractedSoybean[57]
COSβ-1,4D-glucosamineEnzymatic hydrolysisShell of crustaceans[63]
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

Yuan, M.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, T.; Feng, H.; Liu, Y.; Chen, K. The Role of Nondigestible Oligosaccharides in Alleviating Human Chronic Diseases by Regulating the Gut Microbiota: A Review. Foods 2024, 13, 2157. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13132157

AMA Style

Yuan M, Zhang Z, Liu T, Feng H, Liu Y, Chen K. The Role of Nondigestible Oligosaccharides in Alleviating Human Chronic Diseases by Regulating the Gut Microbiota: A Review. Foods. 2024; 13(13):2157. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13132157

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yuan, Meiyu, Zhongwei Zhang, Tongying Liu, Hua Feng, Yuhuan Liu, and Kai Chen. 2024. "The Role of Nondigestible Oligosaccharides in Alleviating Human Chronic Diseases by Regulating the Gut Microbiota: A Review" Foods 13, no. 13: 2157. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13132157

APA Style

Yuan, M., Zhang, Z., Liu, T., Feng, H., Liu, Y., & Chen, K. (2024). The Role of Nondigestible Oligosaccharides in Alleviating Human Chronic Diseases by Regulating the Gut Microbiota: A Review. Foods, 13(13), 2157. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13132157

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