Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
CRISPR-Cas Systems: Bridging Bacterial Immunity and Host Interactions
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Capacity of Microbial Strains and Communities to Degrade Sewerage Fats, Oils, and Grease Clog Deposits
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Brief Report

Immunocompetent High-Throughput Gut-on-Chip Model for Intestinal Microbes—Host Interaction Studies

BIOASTER, 69007 Lyon, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Microbiol. 2025, 5(4), 117; https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol5040117
Submission received: 18 September 2025 / Revised: 22 October 2025 / Accepted: 24 October 2025 / Published: 27 October 2025

Abstract

The intestinal microbiota plays a crucial role in maintaining epithelial barrier integrity, while its impairment and the resulting inflammation contribute to numerous human pathologies. To preserve intestinal homeostasis, various probiotics are being developed; however, their selection and validation require accessible yet physiologically relevant models. We recently established a high-throughput Gut-on-Chip model comprising human epithelial (Caco-2) cells and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), demonstrating epithelial barrier disruption and pro-inflammatory cytokine secretion upon inflammation induction. The present study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of co-culturing anaerobic members of the human intestinal microbiota within this model and to assess their effects on inflammation-induced epithelial damage. We successfully co-cultured five intestinal anaerobic bacterial species in direct contact with the epithelial monolayer for two days. As proof of concept, we demonstrate that live Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron and its supernatant preserve epithelial barrier integrity and attenuate CCL2 secretion by Caco-2 cells. In contrast, Clostridium scindens did not prevent epithelial damage but suppressed CCL20 secretion, revealing a promising target for future studies. By recapitulating some of the key aspects of intestinal inflammation, we suggest that the current Gut-on-Chip model has potential as an easy-to-use platform for screening next-generation probiotics and live biotherapeutics with homeostatic and immunomodulatory properties.

1. Introduction

The intestinal mucosa surface separates the host from the myriads of microorganisms found in the intestinal lumen. This barrier consists primarily of epithelial cells tightly connected thanks to different junction proteins, thus restricting the infiltration of external antigens between the cells [1,2]. Disruption of this barrier, referred to as the “leaky gut”, and the resulting inflammation contribute to the onset or progression of numerous human pathologies. These include gastrointestinal disorders such as inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, and celiac disease, as well as extraintestinal conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, diabetes, and Parkinson’s disease [3,4]. Intensive research in recent decades unraveled the key role of the intestinal microbiota in the maintenance of the epithelial barrier homeostasis, while changes in the microbiome (also called “dysbiosis”) are often associated with a variety of autoimmune, metabolic, and neurodegenerative diseases [5,6,7]. On the other hand, some microbial structural components and metabolites were demonstrated to strengthen the intestinal epithelial barrier through modification of the expression and spatial organization of junction proteins of intestinal epithelial cells [8,9] either directly or via the modulation of cytokines secretion (e.g., IFNγ, TNFα, IL-1β, IL-6 and others) by epithelial and immune cells [10,11,12,13]. Therefore, “classical” probiotics and postbiotics, as well as next-generation probiotics such as live biotherapeutic products (LBPs), are extensively developed to aid in maintaining the intestinal epithelial barrier and dampening excessive and chronic inflammation [14,15]. However, while numerous product candidates pass through pre-clinical development that includes both in vitro and in vivo models, only ~15% of these candidates in the field of inflammatory diseases succeed in clinical trials and receive approval [16]. Specifically, for IBDs, the use of adequate pre-clinical models that take into account microbiota–host interactions was identified as one of the major targets to improve the success rate of novel treatment development [17]. In this light, microfluidics-based models offer several advantages over “standard” (one cell type-based) in vitro assays as well as over animal models including the following:
  • The use of flow, which mimics the physiological conditions in the intestine and also exerts shear stress on epithelial cells, promoting their differentiation [18,19].
  • The possibility of combining several cell types in one assay (e.g., epithelial and immune cells).
  • The 3D spatial organization of the tissues.
  • The use of human-derived host cells.
Here, we co-cultured Caco-2, human PBMCs, and several intestinal bacteria in a previously described high-throughput Gut-on-Chip model [20,21,22], which allows rapid maturation of the epithelial monolayer and easy monitoring of its barrier integrity as well as cytokine sampling and microscopic analysis. In this model E. coli LPS-stimulated PBMCs secrete a variety of pro-inflammatory cytokines that compromise the integrity of the epithelial barrier formed by Caco-2 cells [20]. The capacity of two bacterial strains to reduce the inflammation and protect the epithelial barrier was then tested. We suggest that the current Gut-on-Chip model recapitulates some of the key features of intestinal inflammation and enables easy-to-use screening of novel (bio)therapeutics in a high-throughput manner.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. PBMC

Human peripheral blood samples were collected at the French Blood Establishment (Établissement Français du Sang (EFS), Rungis, France) which is responsible for the collection and distribution of blood in France. All donors provided informed consent to EFS. This sample collection does not require any ethical committee submission, in accordance with current regulations for products supplied by the EFS.
PBMCs from six human blood samples collected in lithium heparin tubes (Becton Dickinson and Co., Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) were isolated using standard procedure within 12 h of collection as previously discussed in [20]. PBMCs were kept in liquid nitrogen until use and then thawed on the day of experiment, centrifuged at 450× g for 10 min, and set to 106 cells/mL in RPMI 1640 medium supplemented with 10% heat inactivated fetal bovine serum (HI FBS) and 1% penicillin/streptomycin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA).

2.2. Intestinal Epithelial Cells

Caco-2 cells (TC-7 clone, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) were cultured in complete Minimum Essential Medium (MEM, Gibco, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) supplemented with 10% HI FBS (Gibco, Waltham, MA, USA), 1% sodium pyruvate (Gibco, Waltham, MA, USA), 1% non-essential amino acids (NEAA, Gibco, Waltham, MA, USA), and 1% penicillin/streptomycin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). Cultures were maintained at 37 °C in a humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO2 and used between passages 2 and 12.

2.3. OrganoPlate Seeding

Caco-2 culture in the 3-lane OrganoPlate® (Mimetas B.V., Oegstgeest, The Netherlands) was performed as previously reported in [21]. In short, 2 × 104 Caco-2 cells were seeded on top of a 4 mg/mL Collagen I gel (Collagen-I rat tail, R&D systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA) and allowed to attach for 4 h (37 °C, 5% CO2). Caco-2 medium was then added to the inlets and outlets, and bidirectional flow was created by placing the plate on an interval rocker (Perfusion Rocker, Mimetas B.V., Oegstgeest, The Netherlands) switching between a +7° and −7° inclination every 8 min (37 °C, 5% CO2). The medium was changed 4 days after the seeding. When indicated, 5 days after Caco-2 seeding, the medium in the opposite channel was exchanged with 105 PBMCs in supplemented RPMI (without antibiotics), with (or without) LPS mix of three previously communicated strains of E. coli (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA, cat. nos. L2637, 3012 and 3137, [23]) at 100 ng/mL each.

2.4. Bacteria Co-Culture in OrganoPlate

Bacterial strains (Table 1) were cultivated first on previously described mGAM-CRIM agar plates [24] for 48 h in the BACTRON600 (Sheldon Manufacturing, Inc., Cornelius, OR, USA) anaerobic chamber at 37 °C. Then a single colony of each strain was inoculated in 5 mL mGAM-CRIM liquid broth and incubated in the chamber for 24 additional hours. The next day, bacterial cultures were centrifuged at 10,000× g for 10 min and the supernatants were filtered through a 0.22 µm filter (Millex-GS, Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany). To eliminate the residuals of the supernatant, bacteria pellets were washed twice in PBS, by repeating resuspension and centrifugation steps, and then set to an optical density (600 nm) of 1 in a MEM medium supplemented with 1% sodium pyruvate (Gibco, Waltham, MA, USA), 1% NEAA (Gibco, Waltham, MA, USA), and 1X Insulin-Transferrin-Selenium-Ethanolamine solution (ITS; Gibco, Waltham, MA, USA), called here “MEM-co-culture medium”. Of note, this medium is free of antibiotics and serum to avoid interference with bacterial growth, while the addition of ITS maintains the mammalian cell viability in the absence of serum. On day 5, upon Caco-2 seeding, and simultaneously with PBMCs (+/− E. coli LPS) administration in the bottom channel, the medium in the top channel was replaced by bacteria suspension in MEM-co-culture medium or with sterile medium supplemented with filtered bacteria supernatant at 30% final concentration. OrganoPlates were then incubated in hypoxic conditions: 4% O2 and 5% CO2 at 37 °C. At indicated time points, 10 µL samples of medium from the top channels were taken, serially diluted in PBS, plated on mGAM-CRIM plates, and incubated for 48 h in the anaerobic chamber for colony forming units (CFU) determination.

2.5. Cytokine Secretion

For cytokine analysis the medium from each channel was collected and stored at −20 °C for analysis using the Luminex method. The concentrations of CCL2, CCL20, CCL28, IFNγ, IL-2, CXCL8 (IL-8), TNFα, CCL3, CCL25, CXCL10, IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-10 were quantified using the Bio-Plex® 200 system (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) with a multiplex assay (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Only the results of quantitatively detected cytokines are presented. IL-8 concentration was assessed using the ELISA method according to the manufacturer protocol (R&D Systems).

2.6. TEER Measurements

Transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) was measured as previously described by Beaurivage et al. [21] and presented in resistance units (Ω·cm2).

2.7. Immunohistochemistry and Microscopy

At the end point of experiments, all cell cultures were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde (VWR 100504-858) in DPBS +Ca/+Mg (14040-083; Gibco, Waltham, MA, USA) for 30 min. Cell membranes were permeabilized with a 0.1% Triton-X-100 solution in DPBS for 20 min and blocked with a 2% bovine serum albumin (BSA, A2153; Sigma-Aldrich St. Louis, MO, USA) in DPBS for over 1 h. Primary antibodies against ZO-1 (Invitrogen 61-7300, AB_138452, Carlsbad, CA, USA) were then diluted in a 2% BSA solution in DPBS and incubated overnight at 4 °C. Secondary antibodies (Invitrogen A-21429, AB_2535850), DAPI (Invitrogen, D1306), and Phalloidin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA; P5282) were then also diluted in 2% BSA and incubated for 2 h. Cell cultures were rinsed with DPBS prior to imaging. All steps, except when specified otherwise, were performed on chips and at room temperature. Confocal immunostaining images were acquired using a spinning disk microscope (Andor BC34 CF) using a 20X magnification air objective (NA 0.8). Z-stacks were acquired over a range of 200 µm with a Z resolution of 0.3 µm.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

TEER measurements: Repeated measures (RM) two-way or one-way Anova analysis was performed comparing each condition to a control condition decided for each type of experiment. Only statistically significant different results were considered when the p-value was lower than 0.05 and presented with asterisks.
IL-8 ELISA: Ratio paired t test was performed comparing each condition to a control condition. Only statistically significant different results were considered when the p-value was lower than 0.05 and presented with asterisks.
Multiplex cytokine analysis: The analysis was performed as previously described [20]. Briefly, each assay was analyzed individually, comparing the expression in one condition with a control using a non-parametric Wilcoxon test while the p-values were adjusted using the Benjamini–Hochberg approach [25]. When indicated, the log2-fold change was calculated as the log2 ratio of mean expression levels between the two conditions that was considered significantly different if an adjusted p-value < 0.05.

3. Results

A tubule-shaped monolayer of Caco-2 cells within one of the channels (“Lumen” channel) was prepared within each chip of the microfluidic device called OrganoPlate®, as previously demonstrated by Beaurivage et al. [21]. Once the epithelial barrier (assessed by TEER) was established, six bacterial species (Table 1) commonly inhabiting the human intestine were introduced within the Lumen channel of the chips to survive in co-culture with the epithelial cells (Figure 1A). Since these bacteria are anaerobic, experiments were conducted at 4% oxygen, which better reflects the physiological values ranging from ∼6% in the vascularized submucosa to 1–2% near the crypt–lumen interface [26]. Except for Roseburia intestinalis, all five other species maintained a concentration of viable units above 106 CFU/chip (Figure 1B) for 48 h. At the same time, no decrease in epithelial barrier efficiency (Figure 1D) and no significant increase in secretion of the main pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-8 [27,28] were detected (Figure 1C), suggesting that epithelial cells suffered no damage or inflammatory stress.
Encouraged by these observations, we tested the capacity of some of these bacterial species to mitigate inflammation-induced epithelial damage. We decided to proceed with two species that were proposed for live biotherapeutic development. The first is B. thetaiotaomicron, whose anti-inflammatory and epithelial barrier-supporting features were demonstrated both in vitro and in vivo [29,30,31,32]. The second is C. scindens, which was not reported to possess such abilities but is capable of secondary bile acid production, preventing the emergence of important human pathogen Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile [33,34] and playing a significant role in steroid metabolism in humans [35]. To mimic epithelial damage mediated by the pro-inflammatory activity of immune cells, we introduced human PBMCs into the opposite (“Basal”) channel of each chip and stimulated them with a lipopolysaccharide (LPS) from E. coli, as we reported previously [20]. Simultaneously with the addition of PBMCs to the Basal channel, washed B. thetaiotaomicron, C. scindens, or their filtered spent culture medium from overnight cultures at 30% vol/vol were co-incubated in the Lumen channels (Figure 2A). Similarly to the experiment without PBMC, B. thetaiotaomicron viability remained roughly unchanged during the two days of the co-culture experiment, while the CFU of C. scindens rapidly declined (Figure 2B). Intriguingly, while LPS stimulation of PBMCs provoked a 41% decrease in TEER of Caco-2 (from 144.0 ± 25.89 to 84.83 ± 4.22 Ω·cm2) at 24 h post stimulation, co-culture with B. thetaiotaomicron or co-incubation with its supernatant completely protected the Caco-2 cells from the LPS-induced damage (Figure 2C). On the other hand, the spent medium of C. scindens, but not the bacteria themselves, demonstrated moderate mitigation of the epithelial barrier damage (123.0 ± 18.33 Ω·cm2) compared to the control medium (84.83 ± 4.22 Ω·cm2). The overall pattern of effects on TEER remained similar at both time points although the effect of bacteria supernatants fell below the statistical significance threshold at 48 h due to increased variability of the results.
To test whether the protective effect is associated with immunomodulation, we analyzed the cytokine profile in both channels at the end of the 48 h of the experiment. As expected, LPS stimulation of PBMCs induced a sharp increase in concentration of most tested cytokines, which was more profound in the Basal channel where the PBMCs resided (Figure 3A,B and Figure S1). Interestingly, bacteria and their supernatants had very limited and mostly statistically insignificant effect on the cytokine profiles in the Basal channel (Figure 3C and Figure S1). On the other hand, the concentrations of CCL2 and CCL20 chemokines in the Lumen channel were strongly altered (Figure 3D and Figure S1). Specifically, B. thetaiotaomicron and its spent medium decreased the CCL2 concentration by 4.53- (p = 7.63 × 10−6) and 5.76- (p = 7.63 × 10−6) fold, respectively, while only the bacteria, but not the supernatant, reduced the concentration of CCL20 by 5.85- (p = 1.53 × 10−5) fold (Table S1). Co-culture of C. scindens with the Caco-2 cells provoked an even more profound decrease—14.10- (p = 7.63 × 10−6) fold—in the concentration of CCL20, however this tendency was reverted when only the spend medium of C. scindens was used, provoking a 2.3- (p = 7.63 × 10−6) fold increase in this cytokine. Accordingly, the concentration of two pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-6 and IL-8 showed very moderate—1.10- and 1.56-fold, respectively—but still statistically significant (p = 6.57 × 10−3 and p = 8.03 × 10−3) increase when only the supernatant of C. scindens was added to the Lumen channel.
Since the efficiency of the epithelial barrier is maintained mainly by tight junction proteins [1,2], we investigated the spatial organization of the key component of this complex—Zonula Occludin-1 (ZO-1)—using immunofluorescence microscopy (Andor Technology Ltd, Belfast, Northern Ireland). Indeed, LPS stimulation of PBMCs altered the homogeneous distribution of ZO-1 along Caco-2 cell edges and also impacted the general morphology of the epithelial monolayer as evidenced by the filamentous actin (F-Actin) staining (Figure 4). In accordance with TEER measurements, co-culturing B. thetaiotaomicron in the Lumen channel mitigated the alteration of ZO-1 and F-actin spatial distribution. The spent medium of B. thetaiotaomicron, on the other hand, provoked a dramatic effect on the organization of both markers: ZO-1 often appeared in patches along the cell edges, while F-actin seemed to be concentrated almost exclusively at the cell edges (cortex) in contrast to a more homogeneous distribution seen in other experimental conditions. The morphology of epithelial cells upon incubation with C. scindens or its supernatant looked similar to the condition with LPS-stimulated PBMCs without any additional treatment.

4. Discussion

To co-culture anaerobic bacteria with host cells in vitro, researchers usually use sophisticated models involving pumps and/or anaerobic chambers that allow control of oxygen tension in different compartments of the microfluidic device [36,37,38,39,40,41]. The current model demonstrates the feasibility of prolonged co-culturing of some anaerobic bacteria in an easy and high-throughput model simply by reducing the oxygen concentration to the physiologically relevant value of 4%. It is also possible that the rapid oxygen consumption by epithelial cells creates a niche in their close vicinity with an even lower oxygen concentration, allowing anaerobic bacteria to survive.
LPS stimulation of PBMCs in the current Gut-on-Chip model upregulated several cytokines that play a crucial role in modulating the intestinal epithelial barrier (Figure 3). These include chemokines that control the recruitment of immune cells to the inflamed tissue, such as CCL-20, CCL2 (MCP-1), and CCL3 (MIP-1α), as well as cytokines regulating the activation status of these cells: IL-1β, IL-8, IL-6, TNFα, and IL-10 [11,42]. Administration of live bacteria or of their filtered supernatants in the Lumen channel mostly did not modulate the increase in cytokine concentration in the opposite Basal channel, whose main source is PBMCs (Figure 3C). In the Lumen channel, however, the increase in CCL2 concentration was reverted by B. thetaiotaomicron and its supernatant, and the increase in CCL20 was reverted by both bacterial strains (Figure 3D). As no modulation of these two chemokines was observed in the Basal channel, the impact of the bacteria is most probably mediated via modulation of cytokine secretion from the Caco-2 cells. The decrease in CCL2, but not in CCL20, correlates with the improvement in the epithelial barrier function assessed by TEER (Figure 2B), suggesting that CCL2 plays a key role in epithelial barrier damage in this model. In agreement with this observation, elevated CCL2 concentrations were detected in intestinal specimens of patients suffering from inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) in several studies [43,44,45]. While C. scindens did not significantly improve epithelial barrier integrity, its pronounced impact on CCL20 secretion, a central chemokine in intestinal inflammation, underscores its relevance for future studies as a biotherapeutic in the autoimmune disease area [46,47]. However, the opposite effect of C. scindens supernatant on CCL20, as well as a mild increase in IL-8 concentration in the Lumen channel, suggest ambivalent interaction of this species with intestinal epithelium. The rapid decline of cultivable bacteria number (~2 logs CFU/day) might be one of the reasons for this ambiguous phenotype of C. scindens under the current model conditions.
On the cell morphology level, B. thetaiotaomicron co-culture with epithelial cells seems to prevent the inflammation-induced decrease in ZO-1 localization at the cell edges (Figure 4), which aligns well with a previous communication about the positive effect of this species on ZO-1 mRNA expression [31]. The fact that the bacteria supernatant alone also promoted the protection of the epithelial barrier function suggests that the effect of B. thetaiotaomicron is mediated by a secreted factor. Indeed, tryptophan metabolites, including indole derivatives, produced by this bacterium were demonstrated to enhance epithelial barrier function [30]. However, the effect of the supernatant on F-actin and ZO-1 organization looked strikingly different from the one provoked by the B. thetaiotaomicron co-culture, although both treatments protected the epithelial barrier from inflammation-induced deterioration. While the patchy ZO-1 staining is not usually associated with a strong epithelial barrier, we observed a noticeable enhancement of cortical actin cytoskeleton, which is also critical for the integrity of the gut barrier [48] and might explain the positive effect of B. thetaiotaomicron supernatant after all. In general, the different results obtained with live bacteria and its supernatant suggest that B. thetaiotaomicron has more than one way of impacting epithelial homeostasis. In fact, at least one cell-associated factor of B. thetaiotaomicron—pirin-like protein was demonstrated to reduce pro-inflammatory NF-κB signaling in Caco-2 cells [29]. More investigations are needed to elucidate the complete picture of the effect of this species.

5. Conclusions

Previously, we have set up the Gut-on-Chip inflammatory model using epithelial cell line and human PBMCs and demonstrated the homeostatic effect of probiotic supernatants [20]. Besides enterocytes and circulating immune cells, the intestinal tissue comprises a variety of cell types, including secretory epithelial cells, intraepithelial and tissue-resident immune cells. Therefore, the current Gut-on-Chip model cannot fully replicate the entire complexity of the inflammatory process in vivo. Nevertheless, it recapitulates selected key features of intestinal inflammation: epithelial barrier damage and pro-inflammatory cytokine secretion. Furthermore, in the present study we showed that some anaerobic bacteria from the human intestine can be co-cultured in this model. As a proof of concept, we screened six anaerobic species and demonstrated the protective effect of B. thetaiotaomicron on the epithelial barrier against inflammation-mediated damage, associated with CCL2 secretion prevention and modulation of ZO-1 and F-actin spatial organization, while also flagging C. scindens as a promising candidate for future studies. In addition, established in the commercially available OrganoPlate platform, the model is easily standardizable and scalable to higher-throughput applications.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/applmicrobiol5040117/s1, Figure S1: Absolute concentration of quantitatively detected cytokines; Table S1: Raw data of cytokine concentrations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.B. and N.C.; Methodology, I.B., B.B., S.A. and N.C.; Validation, A.R. and C.V.; Formal analysis, N.C., E.A., B.B. and M.R.; Investigation, N.C., E.A. and B.B.; Writing—original draft preparation, I.B.; Writing—review and editing, I.B., S.A. and N.C.; Visualization, S.A. and M.R.; Supervision, C.V. and I.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because the blood from healthy donors was supplied by the French Blood Establishment (EFS), which is responsible for the collection and distribution of blood in France. All donors provided informed consent to EFS. This sample collection does not require any ethical committee submission.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study under responsibility of French Blood Establishment (EFS).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article and the Supplementary Materials. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Buckley, A.; Turner, J.R. Cell Biology of Tight Junction Barrier Regulation and Mucosal Disease. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2018, 10, a029314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Moonwiriyakit, A.; Pathomthongtaweechai, N.; Steinhagen, P.R.; Chantawichitwong, P.; Satianrapapong, W.; Pongkorpsakol, P. Tight junctions: From molecules to gastrointestinal diseases. Tissue Barriers 2023, 11, 2077620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tommaso, D.; Gasbarrini, A.; Ponziani, F.R. Intestinal Barrier in Human Health and Disease. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Stolfi, C.; Maresca, C.; Monteleone, G.; Laudisi, F. Implication of Intestinal Barrier Dysfunction in Gut Dysbiosis and Diseases. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kinashi, Y.; Hase, K. Partners in Leaky Gut Syndrome: Intestinal Dysbiosis and Autoimmunity. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 673708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Régnier, M.; Van Hul, M.; Knauf, C.; Cani, P.D. Gut microbiome, endocrine control of gut barrier function and metabolic diseases. J. Endocrinol. 2021, 248, R67–R82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Mou, Y.; Du, Y.; Zhou, L.; Yue, J.; Hu, X.; Liu, Y.; Chen, S.; Lin, X.; Zhang, G.; Xiao, H.; et al. Gut Microbiota Interact With the Brain Through Systemic Chronic Inflammation: Implications on Neuroinflammation, Neurodegeneration, and Aging. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 796288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Kayama, H.; Okumura, R.; Takeda, K. Interaction Between the Microbiota, Epithelia, and Immune Cells in the Intestine. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2020, 38, 23–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Ghosh, S.; Whitley, C.S.; Haribabu, B.; Jala, V.R. Regulation of Intestinal Barrier Function by Microbial Metabolites. Cell. Mol. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 11, 1463–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Neurath, M.F. Cytokines in inflammatory bowel disease. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2014, 14, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Barbara, G.; Barbaro, M.R.; Fuschi, D.; Palombo, M.; Falangone, F.; Cremon, C.; Marasco, G.; Stanghellini, V. Inflammatory and Microbiota-Related Regulation of the Intestinal Epithelial Barrier. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 718356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chelakkot, C.; Ghim, J.; Ryu, S.H. Mechanisms regulating intestinal barrier integrity and its pathological implications. Exp. Mol. Med. 2018, 50, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Capaldo, C.T.; Nusrat, A. Cytokine regulation of tight junctions. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2009, 1788, 864–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Martyniak, A.; Medyńska-Przęczek, A.; Wędrychowicz, A.; Skoczeń, S.; Tomasik, P.J. Prebiotics, Probiotics, Synbiotics, Paraprobiotics and Postbiotic Compounds in IBD. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 1903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Tsai, Y.L.; Lin, T.L.; Chang, C.J.; Wu, T.R.; Lai, W.F.; Lu, C.C.; Lai, H.C. Probiotics, prebiotics and amelioration of diseases. J. Biomed. Sci. 2019, 26, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Wong, C.H.; Siah, K.W.; Lo, A.W. Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters. Biostatistics 2019, 20, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ciorba, M.A.; Konnikova, L.; Hirota, S.A.; Lucchetta, E.M.; Turner, J.R.; Slavin, A.; Johnson, K.; Condray, C.D.; Hong, S.; Cressall, B.K.; et al. Challenges in IBD Research 2024: Preclinical Human IBD Mechanisms. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2024, 30 (Suppl. S2), S5–S18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pocock, K.; Delon, L.; Bala, V.; Rao, S.; Priest, C.; Prestidge, C.; Thierry, B. Intestine-on-a-Chip Microfluidic Model for Efficient in Vitro Screening of Oral Chemotherapeutic Uptake. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 3, 951–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chi, M.; Yi, B.; Oh, S.; Park, D.J.; Sung, J.H.; Park, S. A microfluidic cell culture device (μFCCD) to culture epithelial cells with physiological and morphological properties that mimic those of the human intestine. Biomed. Microdevices 2015, 17, 9966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Belotserkovsky, I.; Vernochet, C.; Roelens, M.; Beitz, B.; Ben Abdallah, B.; Poissonnier, S.; Bellais, S.; Hesketh, A.; Meza Torres, J.; Mouharib, M.; et al. Bifidobacterium Longum subsp. infantis and Lacticaseibacillus Rhamnosus GG Protect Intestinal Epithelium Against Inflammation-Mediated Damage in an Immunocompetent In-Vitro Model. Appl. Microbiol. 2025, 5, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Beaurivage, C.; Naumovska, E.; Chang, Y.X.; Elstak, E.D.; Nicolas, A.; Wouters, H.; van Moolenbroek, G.; Lanz, H.L.; Trietsch, S.J.; Joore, J.; et al. Development of a Gut-On-A-Chip Model for High Throughput Disease Modeling and Drug Discovery. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 5661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gijzen, L.; Marescotti, D.; Raineri, E.; Nicolas, A.; Lanz, H.L.; Guerrera, D.; van Vught, R.; Joore, J.; Vulto, P.; Peitsch, M.C.; et al. An Intestine-on-a-Chip Model of Plug-and-Play Modularity to Study Inflammatory Processes. SLAS Technol. 2020, 25, 585–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bounab, Y.; Eyer, K.; Dixneuf, S.; Rybczynska, M.; Chauvel, C.; Mistretta, M.; Tran, T.; Aymerich, N.; Chenon, G.; Llitjos, J.F.; et al. Dynamic single-cell phenotyping of immune cells using the microfluidic platform DropMap. Nat. Protoc. 2020, 15, 2920–2955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Meslier, V.; Plaza Oñate, F.; Ania, M.; Nehlich, M.; Belotserkovsky, I.; Bellais, S.; Thomas, V. Draft Genome Sequence of Isolate POC01, a Novel Anaerobic Member of the Oscillospiraceae Family, Isolated from Human Feces. Microbiol. Resour. Announc. 2022, 11, e0113421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Benjamini, Y.; Hochberg, Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 1995, 57, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Singhal, R.; Shah, Y.M. Oxygen battle in the gut: Hypoxia and hypoxia-inducible factors in metabolic and inflammatory responses in the intestine. J. Biol. Chem. 2020, 295, 10493–10505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. van Deventer, S.J. Review article: Chemokine production by intestinal epithelial cells: A therapeutic target in inflammatory bowel disease? Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 1997, 11 (Suppl. S3), 116–120; discussion 120–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vebr, M.; Pomahačová, R.; Sýkora, J.; Schwarz, J. A Narrative Review of Cytokine Networks: Pathophysiological and Therapeutic Implications for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Pathogenesis. Biomedicines 2023, 11, 3229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Delday, M.; Mulder, I.; Logan, E.T.; Grant, G. Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron Ameliorates Colon Inflammation in Preclinical Models of Crohn’s Disease. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2019, 25, 85–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Luo, Y.; Lan, C.; Ren, W.; Wu, A.; Yu, B.; He, J.; Chen, D. Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron: A symbiotic ally against diarrhea along with modulation of gut microbial ecological networks via tryptophan metabolism and AHR-Nrf2 signaling. J. Adv. Res. 2025, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pan, M.; Barua, N.; Ip, M. Mucin-degrading gut commensals isolated from healthy faecal donor suppress intestinal epithelial inflammation and regulate tight junction barrier function. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 1021094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, K.; Hao, Z.; Du, J.; Gao, Y.; Yang, S.; Zhou, Y. Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron relieves colon inflammation by activating aryl hydrocarbon receptor and modulating CD4(+)T cell homeostasis. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2021, 90, 107183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Buffie, C.G.; Bucci, V.; Stein, R.R.; McKenney, P.T.; Ling, L.; Gobourne, A.; No, D.; Liu, H.; Kinnebrew, M.; Viale, A.; et al. Precision microbiome reconstitution restores bile acid mediated resistance to Clostridium difficile. Nature 2015, 517, 205–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Abt, M.C.; McKenney, P.T.; Pamer, E.G. Clostridium difficile colitis: Pathogenesis and host defence. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2016, 14, 609–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Daniel, S.L.; Ridlon, J.M. Clostridium scindens: History and current outlook for a keystone species in the mammalian gut involved in bile acid and steroid metabolism. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2025, 49, fuaf016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, J.; Huang, Y.-J.; Trapecar, M.; Wright, C.; Schneider, K.; Kemmitt, J.; Hernandez-Gordillo, V.; Yoon, J.H.; Poyet, M.; Alm, E.J.; et al. An immune-competent human gut microphysiological system enables inflammation-modulation by Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 2024, 10, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jalili-Firoozinezhad, S.; Gazzaniga, F.S.; Calamari, E.L.; Camacho, D.M.; Fadel, C.W.; Bein, A.; Swenor, B.; Nestor, B.; Cronce, M.J.; Tovaglieri, A.; et al. A complex human gut microbiome cultured in an anaerobic intestine-on-a-chip. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2019, 3, 520–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Marzorati, M.; Vanhoecke, B.; De Ryck, T.; Sadabad, M.S.; Pinheiro, I.; Possemiers, S.; Abbeele, P.V.D.; Derycke, L.; Bracke, M.; Pieters, J.; et al. The HMI module: A new tool to study the Host-Microbiota Interaction in the human gastrointestinal tract in vitro. BMC Microbiol. 2014, 14, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Shah, P.; Fritz, J.V.; Glaab, E.; Desai, M.S.; Greenhalgh, K.; Frachet, A.; Niegowska, M.; Estes, M.; Jäger, C.; Seguin-Devaux, C.; et al. A microfluidics-based in vitro model of the gastrointestinal human-microbe interface. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 11535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shin, W.; Wu, A.; Massidda, M.W.; Foster, C.; Thomas, N.; Lee, D.-W.; Koh, H.; Ju, Y.; Kim, J.; Kim, H.J. A Robust Longitudinal Co-culture of Obligate Anaerobic Gut Microbiome With Human Intestinal Epithelium in an Anoxic-Oxic Interface-on-a-Chip. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2019, 7, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Fofanova, T.Y.; Karandikar, U.C.; Auchtung, J.M.; Wilson, R.L.; Valentin, A.J.; Britton, R.A.; Grande-Allen, K.J.; Estes, M.K.; Hoffman, K.; Ramani, S.; et al. A novel system to culture human intestinal organoids under physiological oxygen content to study microbial-host interaction. PLoS One 2024, 19, e0300666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Singh, U.P.; Singh, N.P.; Murphy, E.A.; Price, R.L.; Fayad, R.; Nagarkatti, M.; Nagarkatti, P.S. Chemokine and cytokine levels in inflammatory bowel disease patients. Cytokine 2016, 77, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Reinecker, H.-C.; Loh, E.Y.; Ringler, D.J.; Mehta, A.; Rombeau, J.L.; MacDermott, R.P. Monocyte-chemoattractant protein 1 gene expression in intestinal epithelial cells and inflammatory bowel disease mucosa. Gastroenterology 1995, 108, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. MacDermott, R.P.; Sanderson, I.R.; Reinecker, H.C. The central role of chemokines (chemotactic cytokines) in the immunopathogenesis of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 1998, 4, 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Banks, C.; Bateman, A.; Payne, R.; Johnson, P.; Sheron, N. Chemokine expression in IBD. Mucosal chemokine expression is unselectively increased in both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. J. Pathol. 2003, 199, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Meitei, H.T.; Jadhav, N.; Lal, G. CCR6-CCL20 axis as a therapeutic target for autoimmune diseases. Autoimmun. Rev. 2021, 20, 102846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lee, A.Y.S.; Eri, R.; Lyons, A.B.; Grimm, M.C.; Korner, H. CC Chemokine Ligand 20 and Its Cognate Receptor CCR6 in Mucosal T Cell Immunology and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Odd Couple or Axis of Evil? Front. Immunol. 2013, 4, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ivanov, A.I.; Parkos, C.A.; Nusrat, A. Cytoskeletal Regulation of Epithelial Barrier Function During Inflammation. Am. J. Pathol. 2010, 177, 512–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Co-culture of anaerobic bacteria with Caco-2 in Gut-on-Chip model. (A) Graphical representation of the experimental system with one microfluidic module (chip) within the OrganoPlate. (B) Colony forming units (CFU) of each bacterial species retrieved from the Lumen channel at the indicated time points. (C) IL-8 concentrations in the Lumen channel after 48 h of co-culture with the different bacteria. A ratio paired t test was performed comparing each condition to the control medium and no condition obtained p-values < 0.05. (D) TEER values along the experiment normalized to the T = 0 h measured just prior to PBMCs introduction and defined as 100%. RM two-way Anova analysis was performed comparing each condition to the control medium for each time point and no condition obtained p-values < 0.05. Each experiment was repeated three times (n = 3) with three technical replicates. Means and standard deviations are presented except for CFU data for which the standard error of the mean (SEM) is used.
Figure 1. Co-culture of anaerobic bacteria with Caco-2 in Gut-on-Chip model. (A) Graphical representation of the experimental system with one microfluidic module (chip) within the OrganoPlate. (B) Colony forming units (CFU) of each bacterial species retrieved from the Lumen channel at the indicated time points. (C) IL-8 concentrations in the Lumen channel after 48 h of co-culture with the different bacteria. A ratio paired t test was performed comparing each condition to the control medium and no condition obtained p-values < 0.05. (D) TEER values along the experiment normalized to the T = 0 h measured just prior to PBMCs introduction and defined as 100%. RM two-way Anova analysis was performed comparing each condition to the control medium for each time point and no condition obtained p-values < 0.05. Each experiment was repeated three times (n = 3) with three technical replicates. Means and standard deviations are presented except for CFU data for which the standard error of the mean (SEM) is used.
Applmicrobiol 05 00117 g001
Figure 2. Co-culture of B. thetaiotaomicron (B. theta.) and C. scindens or incubation of their supernatants (sup) in the Gut-on-Chip model with LPS-stimulated PBMC. (A) Graphical representation of the experimental system. (B) Colony forming units (CFU) of each bacterial species retrieved from the Lumen channel at the indicated time points. (C) TEER values along the experiment normalized at T = 0 h and measured just prior to PBMCs introduction and defined as 100%. RM one-way Anova analysis was performed with * and ** p-values < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively, when comparing each treatment to the “control medium” + LPS. Each experiment was repeated three times (n = 3) with PBMCs from two donors each time (six PBMC donors in total) and at least three technical replicates. Means and standard deviations are presented except for CFU data for which SEM is used.
Figure 2. Co-culture of B. thetaiotaomicron (B. theta.) and C. scindens or incubation of their supernatants (sup) in the Gut-on-Chip model with LPS-stimulated PBMC. (A) Graphical representation of the experimental system. (B) Colony forming units (CFU) of each bacterial species retrieved from the Lumen channel at the indicated time points. (C) TEER values along the experiment normalized at T = 0 h and measured just prior to PBMCs introduction and defined as 100%. RM one-way Anova analysis was performed with * and ** p-values < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively, when comparing each treatment to the “control medium” + LPS. Each experiment was repeated three times (n = 3) with PBMCs from two donors each time (six PBMC donors in total) and at least three technical replicates. Means and standard deviations are presented except for CFU data for which SEM is used.
Applmicrobiol 05 00117 g002
Figure 3. Cytokine secretion in immunocompetent Gut-on-Chip model after 48 h of the experiment start. (A,B) Relative change in cytokine concentration in Basal (A) and Lumen (B) channels after LPS-stimulated (or non-stimulated) PBMCs administration, normalized to the “PBMC, No LPS” group using non-parametric Wilcoxon test. (C,D) Heat map of the relative change in cytokine concentration in Basal (C) and Lumen (D) channels comparing each treatment to the control (fresh) medium in the presence of LPS-stimulated PBMCs in the Basal channel using non-parametric Wilcoxon test. The concentration of IL-8 in the Basal channel upon LPS stimulation was too high for quantitative assessment and therefore could not be plotted in panels (A,C). *, **, and *** represent statistical significance with p-value < 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively. Each experiment was repeated three times with PBMCs from two donors each time (six PBMC donors in total) and at least three technical replicates.
Figure 3. Cytokine secretion in immunocompetent Gut-on-Chip model after 48 h of the experiment start. (A,B) Relative change in cytokine concentration in Basal (A) and Lumen (B) channels after LPS-stimulated (or non-stimulated) PBMCs administration, normalized to the “PBMC, No LPS” group using non-parametric Wilcoxon test. (C,D) Heat map of the relative change in cytokine concentration in Basal (C) and Lumen (D) channels comparing each treatment to the control (fresh) medium in the presence of LPS-stimulated PBMCs in the Basal channel using non-parametric Wilcoxon test. The concentration of IL-8 in the Basal channel upon LPS stimulation was too high for quantitative assessment and therefore could not be plotted in panels (A,C). *, **, and *** represent statistical significance with p-value < 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively. Each experiment was repeated three times with PBMCs from two donors each time (six PBMC donors in total) and at least three technical replicates.
Applmicrobiol 05 00117 g003
Figure 4. Effect of B. thetaiotaomicron, C. scindens, and their supernatants on Caco-2 morphology. Representative immunofluorescence images. Shown images are the mean projection of five consecutive slices of Z-stacks, centered on the bottom cell layer of the Lumen channel, acquired by confocal microscopy. Individual channels are shown separately in grayscale. A color image with all channels merged shown on the right with the following color code: nuclei (cyan), F-actin (magenta), and ZO-1 (orange). Scale bars represent 100 µm.
Figure 4. Effect of B. thetaiotaomicron, C. scindens, and their supernatants on Caco-2 morphology. Representative immunofluorescence images. Shown images are the mean projection of five consecutive slices of Z-stacks, centered on the bottom cell layer of the Lumen channel, acquired by confocal microscopy. Individual channels are shown separately in grayscale. A color image with all channels merged shown on the right with the following color code: nuclei (cyan), F-actin (magenta), and ZO-1 (orange). Scale bars represent 100 µm.
Applmicrobiol 05 00117 g004
Table 1. Bacterial strains used in the study.
Table 1. Bacterial strains used in the study.
SpeciesStrain
Bacteroides thetaiotaomicronDSM 72079
Akkermansia muciniphilaDSM 22959
Christensenella minutaDSM 22607
Roseburia intestinalisDSM 14610
Clostridium scindensDSM 5676
Adlercreutzia equolifaciensDSM 19450
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

Canourgues, N.; Adicéam, E.; Beitz, B.; Atwell, S.; Roelens, M.; Rekiki, A.; Vedrine, C.; Belotserkovsky, I. Immunocompetent High-Throughput Gut-on-Chip Model for Intestinal Microbes—Host Interaction Studies. Appl. Microbiol. 2025, 5, 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol5040117

AMA Style

Canourgues N, Adicéam E, Beitz B, Atwell S, Roelens M, Rekiki A, Vedrine C, Belotserkovsky I. Immunocompetent High-Throughput Gut-on-Chip Model for Intestinal Microbes—Host Interaction Studies. Applied Microbiology. 2025; 5(4):117. https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol5040117

Chicago/Turabian Style

Canourgues, Naomi, Emilie Adicéam, Benoît Beitz, Scott Atwell, Maroussia Roelens, Abdessalem Rekiki, Christophe Vedrine, and Ilia Belotserkovsky. 2025. "Immunocompetent High-Throughput Gut-on-Chip Model for Intestinal Microbes—Host Interaction Studies" Applied Microbiology 5, no. 4: 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol5040117

APA Style

Canourgues, N., Adicéam, E., Beitz, B., Atwell, S., Roelens, M., Rekiki, A., Vedrine, C., & Belotserkovsky, I. (2025). Immunocompetent High-Throughput Gut-on-Chip Model for Intestinal Microbes—Host Interaction Studies. Applied Microbiology, 5(4), 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol5040117

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop