Gastroenterology Research and Practice

Gastroenterology Research and Practice / 2011 / Article
Special Issue

Colitides

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2011 |Article ID 971938 | 16 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/971938

Probiotics, Nuclear Receptor Signaling, and Anti-Inflammatory Pathways

Academic Editor: Genevieve B. Melton-Meaux
Received02 Feb 2011
Revised28 Mar 2011
Accepted19 May 2011
Published26 Jul 2011

Abstract

There is increased investigation of the human microbiome as it relates to health and disease. Dysbiosis is implicated in various clinical conditions including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Probiotics have been explored as a potential treatment for IBD and other diseases. The mechanism of action for probiotics has yet to be fully elucidated. This paper discusses novel mechanisms of action for probiotics involving anti-inflammatory signaling pathways. We highlight recent progress in probiotics and nuclear receptor signaling, such as peroxisome-proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR ) and vitamin D receptor (VDR). We also discuss future areas of investigation.

1. Introduction

Probiotics are ingestible microorganisms with health benefits. Increased interest in the intestinal microbiome and its effect on health and disease is evidenced by the concomitant increase in peer-reviewed clinical trials investigating probiotics as therapy since 1999 [1]. Studies of the various signaling pathways involved in the response to bacteria and inflammation have led to a more detailed understanding of mechanisms and actions of probiotics. This paper discusses progress in understanding how probiotics contribute to intestinal mucosal function, particularly in relation to anti-inflammatory signaling pathways.

2. Intestinal Microflora

The intestinal microflora, as a whole, serves important functions in metabolism, intestinal epithelial cell function and health, immunity, and inflammatory signaling [2, 3]. Recently, there has been increasing interest in the role of the intestinal microflora and its total genetic composition, together referred to as the microbiome in the development, maintenance, and perpetuation of various clinical conditions, both intestinal and extraintestinal.

Dysbiosis has been implicated in various clinical conditions including atopy, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), colorectal cancer, alcoholic liver disease in animal and human studies, obesity and other metabolic disorders, and chronic inflammatory diseases such as IBD [411]. Decreased diversity of the intestinal microbiota was seen in fecal samples obtained from children who subsequently developed allergic disease [6, 7]. Altered microbiota composition in colon cancer patients when compared to patients with normal colonoscopies and in patients with IBS compared to unaffected patients has also been demonstrated [5, 9]. Alcohol feeding resulted in enteric bacterial overgrowth in a mouse model [8]. The role of the microbiota in obesity has been extensively studied and carefully reviewed in the literature [12, 13]. Microbial composition in IBD patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn’s disease (CD) as compared to unaffected individuals has been studied and shows decreased diversity [4, 1419]. This altered microflora may have significant implications for the intestinal milieu, with as yet incompletely understood effects. The pathogenesis of IBD likely involves a combination of factors including intestinal dysbiosis in conjunction with environmental factors in a genetically susceptible host [20].

Based on the concept of a dysregulated or dysfunctional microbiota in disease, various methods to attenuate the effects of an altered microbiome have been attempted.

3. Probiotics

“Probiotics’’ were first described in the literature by Lilly and Stillwell in 1965 as growth-promoting factors produced by certain microorganisms [21] although it may have been described as early as 1908 [22]. Recently, probiotics were defined as “live organisms which, when consumed in adequate amounts as part of food, confer a health benefit on the host” (Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Evaluation of Health and Nutritional Properties of Probiotics in Food Including Powder Milk with Live Lactic Acid Bacteria (October 2001), “Health and Nutritional Properties of Probiotics in Food Including Powder Milk with Live Lactic Acid Bacteria”, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health Organization). The mechanisms of action of probiotics include immune modulation, direct effect on commensal and pathogenic bacteria to inhibit infection and restore homeostasis, and modification of pathogenic toxins and host products [23]. The efficacy of probiotics in various clinical conditions both in the pediatric and adult patient population has been extensively studied and carefully reviewed [1, 19, 2432].

Rectal infusion of normal stool via enemas to treat pseudomembranous colitis has been described as early as 1958 [70]. Infusion of stool via nasogastric tube to the small intestine or via colonoscopy to the colon for CDAD has also been described and shows high response rates [7174]. A recent study showed that fecal bacteriotherapy was effective in relief of clinical symptoms in a patient with recurrent CDAD and that this was accompanied by the repopulation of the diseased intestinal microbiota with beneficial species that were diminished pretreatment [75]. Other methods to supply live, nonpathogenic organisms to the intestinal microbiota in AAD and CDAD include orally administered probiotics. The efficacy of various probiotic formulations in AAD and CDAD has been extensively studied and carefully reviewed [1]. A recent study showed that the probiotics Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus casei were well tolerated and effective in reducing the risk of the development of AAD and CDAD [76]. The utility of the probiotic yeast Saccharomyces boulardii for a variety of conditions including traveler’s diarrhea, enteral nutrition-associated diarrhea, AAD, and CDAD has been investigated, and according to a recent meta-analysis, strong evidence exists for advocating its use in traveler’s diarrhea and AAD [77]. Recent trials using Bifidobacterium bifidum and Saccharomyces boulardii demonstrated improvement in clinical IBS symptoms and quality of life [78, 79], and several reviews of the evidence for the utility of probiotics in IBS have been published [8082].

For IBD therapy, treatment with different strains of probiotics has shown varied results. Small trials have shown promise for probiotic use in the induction and maintenance of remission in UC. VSL#3 has been shown to be safe and effective in the treatment of acute mild to moderately active UC [83]. Patients with mild to moderate UC unresponsive to conventional therapy achieved a combined induction remission/response rate of 77% with treatment with VSL#3 [84]. E. coli Nissle 1917 was found to be effective and equivalent to mesalazine in maintaining remission in UC [85]. In another study, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) was equivalent to mesalazine in the maintenance of remission in UC, however, appeared to be more effective in prolonging the relapse-free time [86]. Evidence also exists for the role of probiotics in prophylaxis of pouchitis after surgery in UC patients as well as induction of remission in chronic pouchitis [87, 88].

Studies of probiotic use in induction and maintenance of remission and prevention of postoperative recurrence in CD have been less consistent than those for UC. A small study of LGG for the prevention of recurrence after surgery in CD did not show any improvement over placebo [89]; however, Saccharomyces boulardii appears useful in maintaining remission in CD [90, 91]. The progress in the use of probiotics for IBD has been carefully reviewed [92, 93]; however, there remains a relative lack of well-designed, large, randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

Several barriers exist to advocating broad use of probiotics in clinical practice, not least of which is the considerable heterogeneity in the experimental designs with respect to species and strains of probiotics and the various animal models utilized [94]. Although clinical trials examining the role of probiotics in the treatment and/or prevention of AAD, CDAD, IBD including UC, CD, and pouchitis, necrotizing enterocolitis, infectious gastroenteritis, radiation-induced enteritis, and colitis, IBS and various atopic diseases have been reported [1, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 87, 9597]; in many cases, results have been inconsistent, and large, well-designed trials are lacking. An additional complicating factor pertains to issues of quality control. Determining whether a commercially available probiotic actually contains the live organisms it purports to contain and determining if there is rational selection of component probiotic strains in “cocktails” are issues that must be considered [22]. Future research to refine techniques to accurately identify “normal” and “diseased” microbiota and to further elucidate the specific effects and mechanisms of actions of individual probiotic strains will aid in optimizing therapeutic efficacy.

4. Mechanisms for Probiotics in Anti-Inflammation

There has been and continues to be considerable research in delineating the underlying mechanisms by which probiotics exert their beneficial effects. The mechanisms regulating the function of probiotics are very diverse. It is well accepted that probiotics use distinct cellular and molecular mechanisms, including blocking pathogenic bacterial effects, regulating immune responses, and altering intestinal epithelial homeostasis by promoting cell survival, enhancing barrier function, and stimulating protective responses [32].

Table 1 outlines representative publications on probiotic mechanisms of actions. The probiotic-host interaction is complex and further complicated by the fact that certain probiotic effects appear to be species and strain specific. Different probiotics have been shown to exert both pro-inflammatory [98] and anti-inflammatory effects on dendritic cells [99]. A recent study demonstrated that the anti-inflammatory effect of certain lactobacilli is via NOD2-mediated signaling [100]. NOD2/CARD15 is a member of a superfamily of genes involved in intracellular bacterial recognition and has been identified as an important susceptibility gene for CD [101, 102]. The authors speculate that the inconsistent clinical results of lactobacilli use in patients with CD may be related to a relative deficiency of NOD2. Probiotic effect on the innate immune responsive pathways including toll-like receptor (TLR), nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB), mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), c-Jun NH2-terminal kinase (JNK) has been extensively investigated (Table 1). Activation of specific TLRs also appears to be species specific [47, 48]. The action of E. coli Nissle 1917 on Caco-2 cells was found to be mediated by flagellin possibly via a TLR pathway [103]. The probiotic-induced effect on the NF-κB signaling pathway is well represented in the literature and is generally characterized by inhibition (Table 1).


Involved pathwaysProbioticsIn vitro systemIn vivo systemSummaryRef.

NF- B(i) L. casei Shirota (LcS)(i) THP-1(i) Rat(i) L-lactic acid and LcS culture supernatant inhibited NF-κB activation, TNF-α mRNA expression increase, and TNF-α protein secretion in cells treated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) [33]

NF- B(i) LGG(i) CaCo-2(i) LGG reduced TNF-α-induced NF-κB translocation, lessened decrease in IκB, reduced TNFα-induced interleukin (IL)-8 production [34]

NF- B(i) VSL3#(i) YAMC(i) VSL#3 inhibited the proinflammatory NF-κB pathway and induced the expression of cytoprotective heat shock proteins (HSPs) in intestinal epithelial cells [35]

NF- B(i) L. plantarum (LP)(i) YAMC, RAW264.7
(ii) Murine dendritic cells
(i) LP-conditioned media (CM) inhibited the chymotrypsin-like activity of the proteasome, NF-κB binding activity as well as the degradation of IκBα [36]

NF- B(i) LP-L2(i) CaCo-2(i) Caco-2 cells preincubated with LP-L2 showed attenuation of monocyte chemotactic protein-1(MCP-1) protein production and mRNA expression and also prevented IκBα degradation in TNF-α-stimulated Caco-2 cells [37]

NF- B(i) L. casei (Lc)(i) HEK-293T
(ii) CaCo-2
(i) Lc downregulated the transcription of genes encoding proinflammatory effectors and adherence molecules induced by invasive S. flexneri resulting in anti-inflammation mediated by the inhibition of the NF-κB pathway[38]

NF- B(i) B. lactis (i) Mode-K
(ii) MEF
(i) B. lactis activates NF-κB RelA and p38 MAPK phosphorylation in IEC lines[39]

NF- B
MAPK
(ERK1/2/p38/JNK)
(i) S. boulardii (Sb)(i) T84(i) NIH Mice(i) In vivo, Sb protected mice from Salmonella enterica serovar-Typhimurium-(ST-) induced death and prevented hepatic bacterial translocation
(ii) In T84 human colorectal cancer cells, Sb incubation abolished Salmonella invasion, preserved barrier function, and decreased ST-induced IL-8 synthesis
(iii) Sb had an inhibitory effect on ST-induced activation of the MAPKs, extracellular regulated kinase (ERK) 1/2, p38 and JNK, and NF-κB
[40]

NF- B
MAPK (p38/ERK)
SAPK/JNK
(i) E. coli Nissle 1917 (ECN)
(ii) L. fermentum
(iii) L. acidophilus (La)
(iv) Pediococcus pentosaceus
(v) L. paracasei
(vi) VSL#3
(i) CaCo-2(i) CaCo-2 cells treated with probiotic had peak of human β defensins-2 (hBD-2) mRNA expression at 6 h incubation
(ii) Promoter activation via probiotics was abolished with the deletion of NF-κB- and activator-protein-1- (AP-1-) binding sites on the hBD-2 promoter
(iii) Induction of hBD-2 depends on MAPK, ERK 1/2, p38, and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK), to varying degrees
[41]

NF- B
SAPK/JNK
(i) ECN
(ii) Various E. coli strains
(iii) Various Lactobacilli strains
(i) CaCo-2  (i) Active and heat-inactivated ECN and several other probiotic bacteria potently induced hBD-2 in intestinal epithelial cells
(ii) hBD-2 promoter activation was abolished by mutation of the two NF-kB sites in the hBD-2 promoter upon treatment with ECN
(iii) ECN-inducted activation of AP-1 may be regulated by JNK kinase pathway
[42]

SAPK/JNK
MAPK (p38)
(i) LGG(i) YAMC(i) LGG-CM induced Hsp25 and Hsp72 in time- and concentration-dependent manner
(ii) LGG-CM-induced HSP72 induction was blocked by the Inhibitors of p38 and JNK
[43]

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)(i) Sb(i) HT-29(i) APC min(i) Upon exposure to Sb, HER-2, HER-3, insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor, and EGFR were inactivated
(ii) In HT-29 cells, Sb promoted apoptosis, prevented EGF-induced proliferation, and reduced cell colony formation
(iii) Sb decreased intestinal tumor growth and dysplasia in C57BL/6J Min/+ (Apc(Min)) mice
[44]

TLR
NF- B
MAPK (p38)
(i) LGG
(ii) B. longum
(i) HT-29
(ii) T84
   (i) Commensal-origin DNA enhanced expression of TLR9 in HT-29 and T84 cells
(ii) This was associated with attenuation of TNF-α-induced NF-κB activation by reducing IκBα degradation and p38 phosphorylation
(iii) LGG DNA decreased the TNF-α-induced reduction in transepithelial electrical resistance (TER)
[45]

TLR(i) LP BFE 1685
(ii) LGG
(i) HT-29(i) HT29 cells incubated with lactobacilli showed upregulation of TLR2 and TLR9 transcription levels
(ii) Protein expression levels of TLR2 and TLR5 were enhanced
[46]

TLR(i) VSL#3(i) Mice(i) Intragastric administration of gamma-irradiated probiotics significantly ameliorated the severity of DSS-induced colitis in TLR2- and TLR4-deficient mice but not in TLR9-deficient mice [47]

TLR(i) ECN(i) Wild-type (WT), TLR2-/TLR4-knockout mice(i) ECN decreased colitis and proinflammatory cytokine secretion in WT but not TLR2- or TLR4-knockout mice
(ii) ECN resulted in reduction of interferon (IFN)-γ secretion in TLR2 knockout
(iii) Cytokine secretion was almost undetectable and not modulated by ECN in TLR-4-knockout mice
(iv) Increased TLR2 and TLR4 protein expression and NF-κB activity via TLR2 and TLR4 was seen with ECN and human T-cell coculture
[48]

MAPK (p38/ERK)(i) LP
(ii) Lc
(i) Mice peritoneal macrophages(i) LP strongly induced IL-10 and weakly induced IL-12; Lc strongly induced IL-12 and weakly induced IL-10
(ii) LP, compared to Lc, demonstrated more rapid and strong activation of MAPKs, especially of ERK
(iii) Blocking LP-induced ERK activation resulted in decreased IL-10 production and increased IL-12 production
(iv) Combined stimulation with LP and Lc resulted in synergistic induction of IL-10 production; this was triggered by the key factors: cell wall teichoic acid and lipoteichoic acids
(v) Teichoic-acid-induced IL-10 production was mediated by TLR2-dependent ERK activation
[49]

MAPK (p38/ERK)
Tight junctions (TJ)
(i) LGG(i) CaCo-2(i) LGG-produced soluble proteins (p40 and p75) diminished the hydrogen-peroxide-induced decrease in TER and increase in inulin permeability and induced increase in membrane translocation of protein kinase C (PKC) beta I, PKC epsilon, and level of phospho-ERK1/2 in the detergent-insoluble fractions
(ii) LGG-produced soluble proteins (p40 and p75) prevented hydrogen-peroxide-induced redistribution of occludin, zonula occludens (ZO)-1, E-cadherin, and beta-catenin from intercellular junctions and their dissociation from the detergent-insoluble fractions
(iii) p40- and p75-mediated reduction of hydrogen-peroxide-induced tight junction disruption and inulin permeability was attenuated by U0126 (a MAP kinase inhibitor)
[50]

MAPK (p38/ERK)
TJ
(i) B. infantis (i) T84(i) IL-10, IL-1 deficient mice(i) B. infantis-conditioned medium (BiCM) increased TER, ZO-1, and occludin expression and decreased claudin-2 expression; this was associated with increased phospho-ERK and decreased phospho-p38
(ii) TNF-α- and IFN-γ-induced drops in TER and rearrangement of TJ proteins were prevented by BiCM
(iii) Inhibition of ERK attenuated the protection from TNF-α and IFN-γ and prevented BiCM-induced increase in TER
(iv) In vivo, oral BiCM reduced colonic permeability, in IL-10-deficient mice, long-term BiCM decreased colonic and splenic IFN-γ secretion, attenuated inflammation, and normalized colonic permeability
[51]

TJ(i) LP MB452(i) CaCo-2(i) LP MB452 increased TER across Caco-2 cell monolayers in dose-dependent manner
(ii) Altered expression of several tight-junction-related genes (including occludin and associated plaque proteins) was seen in response to LP MB452
(iii) LP MB452 caused changes in gene expression levels of tubulin and proteasome
(iv) LP MB452-treated cells showed increased fluorescence intensity of the four tight junction proteins when compared to untreated controls
[52]

TJ
PKC
(i) LP(i) CaCo-2(i) Unconjugated bilirubin (UCB) caused decreased PKC activity, serine phosphorylated occluding, and ZO-1 levels
(ii) High concentrations of UCB caused cytotoxicity and decreased TER
(iii) Treatment with LP mitigated the effects of UCB on TER and apoptosis, prevented aberrant expression and rearrangement of TJ proteins, and partially restored PKC activity and serine phosphorylated TJ protein levels
[53]

TJ(i) LP DSM2648(i) CaCo-2(i) LP DSM 2648 reduced the deleterious effect of Escherichia coli (enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC)) O127:H6 (E2348/69) on TER and adherence with simultaneous or prior coculture compared with EPEC incubation alone[54]

TJ
TLR
(i) LP(i) CaCo-2(i) Human(i) LP induced translocation of ZO-1 to the TJ region in an in vitro model, but the effects on occludin were minor compared with effects seen in vivo
(ii) LP activated TLR2 signaling, and treatment with TLR2 agonist Pam(3)-Cys-SK4(PCSK), increased fluorescent staining of occludin in the TJ
(iii) Phorbol-ester-induced dislocation of ZO-1 and occludin and associated increase in epithelial permeability were attenuated with pretreatment with LP or PCSK
[55]

TJ(i) B. bifidum (i) Rats(i) B. bifidum decreased the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), normalized IL-6, mucin-3, and Tff3 levels in the ileum of NEC rats, and normalized the expression and localization of TJ and adherens junction (AJ) proteins in the ileum compared with animals with NEC
(ii) B. bifidum did not affect reduced mucin-2 production in the NEC rats
[56]

TJ(i) VSL#3(i) BALB/c mice(i) VSL#3 treatment prevented the increase in epithelial permeability in acute colitis, decrease in expression and redistribution of occludin, ZO-1, and claudin-1, claudin-3, claudin-4, and claudin-5, and increase of epithelial apoptotic ratio[57]

TJ(i) Lr
(ii) La
(i) Mice(i) Pretreatment with combination of Lr and La significantly prevented decrease in the membrane-bound ATPases and reduced expression of tight junction proteins in the membrane[58]

TJ(i) B. lactis 420
(ii) B. lactis HN019
(iii) La NCFM
(iv) L. salivarius Ls-33
(i) CaCo-2  (i) B. lactis 420 and Escherichia coli O157:H7 (EHEC) supernatant had opposite effects in tight junction integrity; B. lactis 420 supernatant protected the tight junctions from EHEC-induced damage when administered before EHEC supernatant
(ii) EHEC and probiotics had reverse effects upon cyclo-oxygenase expression
[59]

TJ(i) ECN(i) BALB/c mice(i) ECN colonization of gnotobiotic mice resulted in upregulation of ZO-1 mRNA and protein levels in IECs
(ii) ECN administration reduced loss of body weight and colon shortening in DSS-treated mice
(iii) ECN inoculation ameliorates the infiltration of the colon with leukocytes
[60]

TJ
PKC
(i) ECN (i) T84(i) EPEC with ECN coincubation: addition of ECN after EPEC infection restored barrier integrity and abolished barrier disruption
(ii) ECN altered the expression, distribution of ZO-2 protein and of distinct PKC isotypes; ZO-2 expression was increased in parallel to its redistribution towards the cell boundaries
(iii) ECN induces restoration of a disrupted epithelial barrier; this is transmitted by PKCzeta silencing and ZO-2 redistribution
[61]

TJ(i) LGG(i) MDCK-1, T84(i) EHEC-induced decrease in electrical resistance and the increase in barrier permeability assays were attenuated by probiotic pretreatment
(ii) LGG protected epithelial monolayers against EHEC-induced redistribution of claudin-1 and ZO-1 proteins
(iii) Heat-inactivated LGG did not affect EHEC binding or disruption of barrier function
[62]

JAK/STAT
MAPK (p38/ERK)
(i) Streptococcus thermophilus
(ii) La
(i) HT29/cl.19A
(ii) Caco-2,
(i) Streptococcus thermophilus (ST)/La or the commensal Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron (BT) prevented the TNF-α- and IFN-γ-induced reduction in TER and increase in epithelial permeability
(ii) ST/La or BT prevented IFN-γ inhibition of agonist-stimulated chloride secretion
(iii) ST/La or BT restoration of Cl(-) secretion was blocked by inhibitors of p38 MAPK, ERK1, 2, and PI3K
(iv) ST/La pretreatment reversed the IFN-γ-induced downregulation of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) and the NKCC1 cotransporter
(v) The effects of ST/La or BT on TER and permeability were potentiated by a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor but not by p38, ERK1, 2, or PI3K inhibition
(vi) Reduced activation of suppressor of cytokine signaling (SOCS)3 and STAT1,3 was seen only in probiotic-treated epithelial cells exposed to cytokines
[63]

JAK/STAT
NF- B
(i) LcS(i) RAW264.7
(ii) LI-LPMC
(iii) UC-PBMC
(i) SAMP1/Yit mice(i) LcS improved chronic ileitis in SAMP1/Yit mice
(ii) Lcs improved murine chronic colitis, and this was associated with decreased IL-6 production by large intestinal lamina propria mononuclear cells ( LI-LPMCs) and downregulation of proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-6 and IFN-γ production in LPMC
(iii) IL-6 release in LPS-activated LI-LPMC, RAW264.7, and ulcerative colitis-peripheral blood mononuclear cells (UC-PBMCs) was inhibited by LcS-derived polysaccharide-peptidoglycan complex (PSPG)
(iv) In lipopolysaccharide- (LPS-) stimulated LI-LPMC and RAW264.7 cells, LcS inhibited the production of IL-6; other strains of Lactobacillus did not
(v) Nuclear translocation of NF-κB was downregulated by LcS
[64]

JAK/STAT(i) Lactobacillus helveticus R0052(i) Intestine 407
(ii) HEp-2
(iii) Caco-2
   (i) After EHEC O157:H7 infection, STAT-1 activation was reduced compared to uninfected cells
(ii) Preincubation with L. helveticus R0052 (but not boiled L. helveticus R0052, an equal concentration of viable Lr R0011, or surface-layer proteins) followed by EHEC infection abrogated disruption of IFN-γ-STAT-1 signaling
[65]

SAPK/JNK
MAPK (p38)
NF- B
(i) S. cerevisiae UFMG 905(i) Mice(i) After Salmonella challenge, S. cerevisiae 905 inhibited weight loss and increased survival rate
(ii) Levels of proinflammatory cytokines were decreased, and activation of mitogen-activated protein kinases (p38 and JNK, but not ERK1/2), NF-κB, and AP-1 was modulated by S. cerevisiae 905
[66]

Lipid/Xenobiotic(i) VSL#3(i) IL-10 KO(i) Probiotics resulted in downregulation of CXCL9, CXCL10, CCL5, T-cell activation and IRGM
(ii) Probiotic treatment decreased the number of CCL5+ CD3+ double-positive T cells consistent with reduction in integrins and upregulated galectin2
(iii) Lipid- and PPAR-signaling-associated genes were also upregulated
(iv) Altered microbial diversity was noted in probiotic-treated mice
(v) Inflammation in IL10-KO mice showed differential regulation of various signaling pathways( inflammatory, nuclear receptor, lipid, and xenobiotic)
[67]

Metabolism/
Glucose Uptake
(i) La
(ii) L. gasseri
(iii) L. amylovorus
(iv) L. gallinarum
(v) L. johnsonii
(i) CaCo-2   (i) Exposure to bacteria-free supernatants of La cultured in chemically defined media (CDM) with 110 mM fructose increased glucose accumulation; exposure to a suspension of the bacteria had no effect
(ii) Heat-denaturing the supernatant diminished the increase in glucose accumulation
(iii) Supernatants prepared with anaerobic culture of L. gasseri, L. amylovorus, L. gallinarum, and L. johnsonii in the CDM with fructose increased glucose accumulation
[68]

Reactive Oxygen
Species (ROS)
NF- B
(i) Lr(i) FHs74Int (i) C57BL/6J (i) LGG induced ROS generation in intestinal epithelia in vitro and in vivo
(ii) Increased glutathione (GSH) oxidation and cullin-1 deneddylation was seen in the intestines of mice fed LGG, showing local ROS generation and the resultant Ubc12 inactivation
(iii) Prefeeding LGG prevented TNF-α-induced activation of intestinal NF-κB
[69]

Defective epithelial barrier function has been implicated in IBD and can predict relapse during clinical remission [104109]. One way by which probiotics have been shown exert their action is by stabilizing tight junctions (TJs) and enhancing barrier function of intestinal epithelial cells (Table 1).

Abnormal STAT/suppressor of cytokine signaling (SOCS) signaling has been demonstrated in CD patients [110], and probiotics are also shown to modulate the JAK-STAT signaling in human placental trophoblast cells [111]. Increasing evidence further demonstrates that metabolism, xenobiotics, and nuclear receptor signaling are involved in the action of probiotics [67, 68].

Induction of heat shock proteins (HSPs) and endogenous antimicrobial peptides (defensins) via activation of NF-κB, MAPK, and JNK has also been linked to probiotic action [35, 41, 43]. Since defensins are implicated in the pathogenesis of IBD, increased expression by probiotics provides a possible mechanism for clinical efficacy seen in certain IBD patients and deserves further study.

5. Defensins and Nuclear Receptor Signaling

Defensins are a class of endogenous antimicrobial peptides involved in innate immunity which is highly evolutionarily conserved and represents a primary line of defense against various microbial pathogens [112114]. Antimicrobial peptides are widely distributed throughout the animal and plant kingdom, and despite their evolutionary heritage, remain effective antimicrobial agents [114]. This is due, in large part, to their mechanism of action involving membrane disruption and pore formation, which is not easily exploited by pathogens to confer resistance [112115]. Important antimicrobial peptides in humans include defensins, cathelicidins, lysozymes, and other antimicrobial antiproteases [116]. There are three known defensin subfamilies; α and β defensins are expressed mainly in immune cells and epithelial cells while the θ defensin is found mainly in immune cells of the Rhesus macaque [117, 118]. In the gastrointestinal tract, β defensin expression is seen in multiple sites, whereas α defensin expression is largely in the small intestine [119]. In the uninflamed colon, human β defensin 1 is the predominant defensin and human β defensin 2 and 3 are induced with inflammation or infection [120]. In mice lacking functional cryptidins (murine α defensins), increased survival and virulence of orally administered bacteria were seen and intestinal peptide preparations had decreased antimicrobial activity [121].

The possible role of a deficiency in defensins in the pathogenesis of IBD has been proposed [116, 122]. The Paneth cells of the small intestine are the major source of endogenous antimicrobials, including α defensins [102]. In addition, The Paneth cells have been shown to express NOD2 [123]. In patients with ileal CD, human α defensin 5 and 6 production is reduced, and this effect is magnified in those patients with a concomitant NOD2 mutation [124]. For β defensins, CD patients with colonic disease exhibit normal levels of β defensin 2 and 3 whereas UC patients have increased levels, suggesting a role of failure of β defensin induction in the pathogenesis of CD [125]. Constitutive human β defensin 1 expression is reduced in CD patients with colonic involvement independent of inflammation, and recently, the maintenance of constitutive β defensin expression was shown to be activated by the nuclear receptor peroxisome-proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) [122].

Further contributing to the effect of a defensin deficiency in the pathogenesis of IBD may be the diminished diversity of the intestinal microbiota seen in IBD patients. The interaction of commensal bacteria with antimicrobial peptide synthesis is not well understood; however, it has been suggested that commensal bacteria provide chronic stimulation of epithelial cells to produce antimicrobial peptides at levels sufficient to kill microbial pathogens [114, 126].

Probiotics, but not fecal isolates, have been shown to induce human β defensin 2 in intestinal epithelial cells [41, 42]. Wehkamp et al. and Schlee et al. have reported that NF-κB and activator protein-1 (AP-1) mediate induction of human β defensin 2 in intestinal epithelial cells by the probiotic E. coli Nissle 1917 and VSL#3 [41, 42].

Interestingly, nuclear receptors are known to regulate the expressions of defensins [122, 127]. Nuclear receptors represent a class of intracellular transcription factors activated by ligands which can directly interact with DNA; as a result, nuclear receptors play significant roles in the regulation of metabolic, reproductive, developmental, and immune processes [128131]. Nuclear receptors regulate transcriptional activity by several distinct mechanisms, including “ligand-dependent transactivation, ligand-independent repression, and ligand-dependent transrepression” although the range of transcriptional activities of each nuclear receptor varies and even the transcriptional effects of a single nuclear receptor may be cell specific [132]. A detailed discussion of nuclear receptors and their mechanisms of action is beyond the scope of this article; however, further discussion of two nuclear receptors (peroxisome-proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) and vitamin D receptor (VDR)) with putative roles in inflammation is warranted.

PPARγ is a member of a class of nuclear receptors that form obligate heterodimers with the retinoid X receptor (RXR) [129]. The PPAR family has been shown to affect various cellular functions including “adipocyte differentiation, fatty-acid oxidation, and glucose metabolism” [129]. PPARγ is highly expressed in the large intestine [133], and its activation has been shown to be protective in animal models of colitis [134, 135]. Decreased PPARγ expression in UC patients has been shown [136], and the anti-inflammatory compound 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) commonly utilized in IBD therapy was shown to be a PPARγ agonist, thereby establishing a possible mechanism by which it exerts its anti-inflammatory effects [137]. PPARγ also plays a role in the maintenance of “constitutive epithelial expression of a subset of β defensins in the colon” [122].

6. Vitamin D and Vitamin D Receptor (VDR)

Vitamin D receptor (VDR) is a nuclear receptor that mediates most known functions of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D3), the active form of vitamin D [138]. VDR heterodimerizes with RXR once VDR is activated by 1,25(OH)2D3. VDR binds to the vitamin D response element in the target gene promoter to regulate gene transcription [139]. VDR downstream target genes include antimicrobial peptides such as cathelicidin and β defensin.

VDR is critical in regulating intestinal homeostasis by preventing pathogenic bacterial invasion, inhibiting inflammation, and maintaining cell integrity [140145]. Vitamin D directly modulates the T-cell receptor (TCR) [146], and vitamin D has also been shown to downregulate the expression of proinflammatory cytokines and have regulatory effects on autophagy and various immune cells including T cells, B cells, macrophages, dendritic cells, and epithelial cells [147, 148]. It has been reported that 1,25(OH)2D3 suppresses the development of IBD in animal models [149]. Deficiency of 1,25(OH)2D3 has been reported in patients with IBD [150, 151], and, recently, using a novel vitamin D bioavailability test, vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency was seen in more than 70% of patients with quiescent CD [152]. Given the diverse immune functions of vitamin D, deficient levels may have important implications for the development and maintenance of intestinal homeostasis. A possible role of vitamin D status and VDR signaling in modulating the effects of intestinal microflora in other conditions such as asthma and obesity has been suggested [100]. While present literature has primarily focused on elucidating the immunoregulatory effects of vitamin D, there is a paucity of data on the status and function of VDR [147]. In addition, probiotic-induced modulation of anti-inflammatory VDR signaling in colitis remains virtually unexplored.

Recent studies indicate that VDR−/− mice have increased bacterial loading in the intestine [145, 153]. Our microarray data found that VDR signaling responds to pathogenic Salmonella in intestinal colitis in vivo [154]. Data from a recent study demonstrate that bacterial stimulation, both commensal and pathogenic, regulates VDR expression and location and that VDR negatively regulates bacterial-induced intestinal NF-κB activation [153]. In general, probiotic-induced nuclear receptor signaling is not well characterized. The probiotic VSL3# was associated with nuclear receptor signaling in the IL10−/− colitis model [67]. Nuclear receptors have been shown to negatively regulate bacterial-stimulated NF-κB activity in intestinal epithelium [153, 155]. Our recent data show probiotic treatment is able to enhance VDR expression and activity in the host. An increase in VDR expression and a concomitant increase in cathelicidin mRNA in cultured intestinal epithelial cells when treated with Lactobacillus plantarum were seen [156]. We used a probiotic monoassociated pig model to assess the probiotic effect on VDR expression in vivo and found intestinal VDR increased significantly after probiotic colonization compared to the ex-germ-free pig. Furthermore, our unpublished data indicate that probiotics did not inhibit inflammation in mice lacking VDR.

The presence of VDR in various tissues along with its ability to exert diverse actions in differentiation, growth, and anti-inflammation sets the stage for exploitation of VDR ligands for the treatment of various inflammatory conditions [157, 158]. Although the potential importance of VDR as a therapeutic target has been appreciated [159], no approach to date has safely and effectively altered VDR’s activity. Hence, understanding VDR’s contribution to probiotic-induced anti-inflammation may provide significant insight in the pathogenesis of inflammatory conditions such as IBD, and thereby, guide the development of novel treatments. Further investigation of the complex interplay of nuclear receptors, defensins, probiotics, and inflammatory pathways may provide significant insight into the mechanisms of action of probiotics in anti-inflammation.

7. Current Problems and Future Directions

The individual diversity of the intestinal microflora underscores the difficulty of identifying the entire human microbiota and poses barriers to this field of research. In addition, it is apparent that the actions of probiotics are species and strain specific [19]. It is also apparent that even a single strain of probiotic may exert its actions via multiple, concomitant pathways. Current investigation into the mechanism of action of specific probiotics has focused on probiotic-induced changes in the innate immune functions involving TLRs and its downstream systems including NF-κB, JAK-STAT, MAPK, and SAPK/JNK pathways. Future research on novel mechanisms of action for probiotics involving nuclear receptor signaling, including PPARγ and VDR, is needed. With evolving knowledge, effective probiotic therapy will be possible in the future.

Abbreviations

AAD:Antibiotic-associated diarrhea
AP-1:Activator protein-1
CD:Crohn’s disease
CDAD:Clostridium-difficile-associated disease
CDM:Chemically defined media
CM:Conditioned media
CTFR:Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator
ECN:E. coli Nissle 1917
EGFR:Epidermal growth factor receptor
EHEC:E. coli O157:H7
EPEC:Enteropathogenic E. coli
ERK:Extracellular-signal-regulated kinase
GSH:Glutathione
hBD:Human beta defensin
HSP:Heat shock proteins
IBD:Inflammatory bowel disease
IBS:Irritable bowel syndrome
IEC:Intestinal epithelial cell
IFN:Interferon
IL:Interleukin
IκB:Inhibitor of kappa B
JAK/STAT:Janus kinase/signal transducers and activators of transcription
La:Lactobacillus acidophilus
Lc:Lactobacillus casei
LcS:Lactobacillus casei Shirota
LGG:Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG
LI-LPMC:Large intestinal lamina propria mononuclear cells
LP:Lactobacillus plantarum
LPS:Lipopolysaccharide
Lr:Lactobacillus rhamnosus
MAPK:Mitogen-activated protein kinase
MCP:Monocyte chemotactic protein
NEC:Necrotizing enterocolitis
NF-κB:Nuclear factor kappa B
PKC:Protein kinase C
PPARγ:Peroxisome-proliferator-activated receptor gamma
ROS:Reactive oxygen species
RXR:Retinoid X receptor
SAPK/JNK:Stress-activated protein kinase/c-Jun NH2-terminal kinase
Sb:Saccharomyces boulardii
SOCS:Suppressor of cytokine signaling
TCR:T-cell receptor
TER:Transepithelial electrical resistance
TJs:Tight junctions
TLR:Toll-like receptor
TNF:Tumor necrosis factor
UC:Ulcerative colitis
UCB:Unconjugated bilirubin
VDR:Vitamin D receptor
ZO:Zonula occludens.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (DK075386-0251, R03DK089010-01) and the IDEAL award from the New York State’s Empire State Stem Cell Board (N09G-279) to J. Sun.

References

  1. L. V. McFarland, “Evidence-based review of probiotics for antibiotic-associated diarrhea and Clostridium difficile infections,” Anaerobe, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 274–280, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. A. S. Neish, “Microbes in gastrointestinal health and disease,” Gastroenterology, vol. 136, no. 1, pp. 65–80, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. W. S. Garrett, J. I. Gordon, and L. H. Glimcher, “Homeostasis and Inflammation in the Intestine,” Cell, vol. 140, no. 6, pp. 859–870, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. M. Joossens, G. Huys, M. Cnockaert et al., “Dysbiosis of the faecal microbiota in patients with Crohn's disease and their unaffected relatives,” Gut, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 631–637, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. I. Sobhani, J. Tap, F. Roudot-Thoraval et al., “Microbial dysbiosis in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients,” PLoS ONE, vol. 6, no. 1, Article ID e16393, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. Y. M. Sjögren, M. C. Jenmalm, M. F. Böttcher, B. Björkstén, and E. Sverremark-Ekström, “Altered early infant gut microbiota in children developing allergy up to 5 years of age,” Clinical and Experimental Allergy, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 518–526, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. B. Björkstén, P. Naaber, E. Sepp, and M. Mikelsaar, “The intestinal microflora in allergic Estonian and Swedish 2-year-old children,” Clinical and Experimental Allergy, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 342–346, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. A. W. Yan, D. E. Fouts, J. Brandl et al., “Enteric dysbiosis associated with a mouse model of alcoholic liver disease,” Hepatology, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 96–105, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. A. Kassinen, L. Krogius-Kurikka, H. Mäkivuokko et al., “The fecal microbiota of irritable bowel syndrome patients differs significantly from that of healthy subjects,” Gastroenterology, vol. 133, no. 1, pp. 24–33, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. R. E. Ley, P. J. Turnbaugh, S. Klein, and J. I. Gordon, “Microbial ecology: human gut microbes associated with obesity,” Nature, vol. 444, no. 7122, pp. 1022–1023, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. M. Vijay-Kumar, J. D. Aitken, F. A. Carvalho et al., “Metabolie syndrome and altered gut microbiota in mice lacking toll-like receptor 5,” Science, vol. 328, no. 5975, pp. 228–231, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. R. E. Ley, “Obesity and the human microbiome,” Current Opinion in Gastroenterology, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 5–11, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. R. E. Ley, F. Bäckhed, P. Turnbaugh, C. A. Lozupone, R. D. Knight, and J. I. Gordon, “Obesity alters gut microbial ecology,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 102, no. 31, pp. 11070–11075, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. C. Manichanh, L. Rigottier-Gois, E. Bonnaud et al., “Reduced diversity of faecal microbiota in Crohn's disease revealed by a metagenomic approach,” Gut, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 205–211, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. D. N. Frank, A. L. S. Amand, R. A. Feldman, E. C. Boedeker, N. Harpaz, and N. R. Pace, “Molecular-phylogenetic characterization of microbial community imbalances in human inflammatory bowel diseases,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104, no. 34, pp. 13780–13785, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. M. P. Conte, S. Schippa, I. Zamboni et al., “Gut-associated bacterial microbiota in paediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease,” Gut, vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 1760–1767, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. R. B. Sartor, “Microbial influences in inflammatory bowel diseases,” Gastroenterology, vol. 134, no. 2, pp. 577–594, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. C. D. Packey and R. B. Sartor, “Interplay of commensal and pathogenic bacteria, genetic mutations, and immunoregulatory defects in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel diseases,” Journal of Internal Medicine, vol. 263, no. 6, pp. 597–606, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. C. Reiff and D. Kelly, “Inflammatory bowel disease, gut bacteria and probiotic therapy,” International Journal of Medical Microbiology, vol. 300, no. 1, pp. 25–33, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. R. B. Sartor, “Mechanisms of disease: pathogenesis of crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis,” Nature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 390–407, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. D. M. Lilly and R. H. Stillwell, “Probiotics: growth-promoting factors produced by microorganisms,” Science, vol. 147, no. 3659, pp. 747–748, 1965. View at: Google Scholar
  22. E. M. Quigley, “Probiotics in gastrointestinal disorders,” Hospital Practice, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 122–129, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  23. T. A. Oelschlaeger, “Mechanisms of probiotic actions—a review,” International Journal of Medical Microbiology, vol. 300, no. 1, pp. 57–62, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. B. G. Spyropoulos, E. P. Misiakos, C. Fotiadis, and C. N. Stoidis, “Antioxidant properties of probiotics and their protective effects in the pathogenesis of radiation-induced enteritis and coliti,” Digestive Diseases and Sciences, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 285–294, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. F. Yan and D. B. Polk, “Probiotics as functional food in the treatment of diarrhea,” Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 717–721, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. K. Madsen, “Probiotics in critically ill patients,” Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, vol. 42, supplement 3, pp. S116–S118, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  27. C. I. Fotiadis, C. N. Stoidis, B. G. Spyropoulos, and E. D. Zografos, “Role of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics in chemoprevention for colorectal cancer,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 14, no. 42, pp. 6453–6457, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. R. Francavilla, V. Miniello, A. M. Magistà et al., “A randomized controlled trial of lactobacillus GG in children with functional abdominal pain,” Pediatrics, vol. 126, no. 6, pp. e1445–e1452, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. D. W. Thomas, F. R. Greer, J. J. S. Bhatia et al., “Clinical report—probiotics and prebiotics in pediatrics,” Pediatrics, vol. 126, no. 6, pp. 1217–1231, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. D. Damaskos and G. Kolios, “Probiotics and prebiotics in inflammatory bowel disease: microflora 'on the scope',” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 453–467, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. A. Tursi, G. Brandimarte, A. Papa et al., “Treatment of relapsing mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis with the probiotic VSL3 as adjunctive to a standard pharmaceutical treatment: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 105, no. 10, pp. 2218–2227, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. C. Vanderpool, F. Yan, and D. B. Polk, “Mechanisms of probiotic action: implications for therapeutic applications in inflammatory bowel diseases,” Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 1585–1596, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. T. Watanabe, H. Nishio, T. Tanigawa et al., “Probiotic Lactobacillus casei strain Shirota prevents indomethacin-induced small intestinal injury: involvement of lactic acid,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 297, no. 3, pp. G506–G513, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. L. Zhang, N. Li, R. Caicedo, and J. Neu, “Alive and dead Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG decrease tumor necrosis factor-α-induced interleukin-8 production in Caco-2 cells,” Journal of Nutrition, vol. 135, no. 7, pp. 1752–1756, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  35. E. O. Petrof, K. Kojima, M. J. Ropeleski et al., “Probiotics inhibit nuclear factor-κB and induce heat shock proteins in colonic epithelial cells through proteasome inhibition,” Gastroenterology, vol. 127, no. 5, pp. 1474–1487, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. E. O. Petrof, E. C. Claud, J. Sun et al., “Bacteria-free solution derived from Lactobacillus plantarum inhibits multiple NF-kappaB pathways and inhibits proteasome function,” Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 1537–1547, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. B. Wang, J. Li, J. Chen, Q. Huang, N. Li, and J. Li, “Effect of live Lactobacillus plantarum L2 on TNF-α-induced MCP-1 production in Caco-2 cells,” International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 142, no. 1-2, pp. 237–241, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. M. T. Tien, S. E. Girardin, B. Regnault et al., “Anti-inflammatory effect of Lactobacillus casei on Shigella-infected human intestinal epithelial cells,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 176, no. 2, pp. 1228–1237, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  39. P. A. Ruiz, M. Hoffmann, S. Szcesny, M. Blaut, and D. Haller, “Innate mechanisms for Bifidobacterium lactis to activate transient pro-inflammatory host responses in intestinal epithelial cells after the colonization of germ-free rats,” Immunology, vol. 115, no. 4, pp. 441–450, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. F. S. Martins, G. Dalmasso, R. M. E. Arantes et al., “Interaction of Saccharomyces boulardii with Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium protects mice and modifies T84 cell response to the infection,” PLoS ONE, vol. 5, no. 1, Article ID e8925, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. M. Schlee, J. Harder, B. Köten, E. F. Stange, J. Wehkamp, and K. Fellermann, “Probiotic lactobacilli and VSL#3 induce enterocyte β-defensin 2,” Clinical and Experimental Immunology, vol. 151, no. 3, pp. 528–535, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. J. Wehkamp, J. Harder, K. Wehkamp et al., “NF-κB- and AP-1-mediated induction of human beta defensin-2 in intestinal epithelial cells by Escherichia coli Nissle 1917: a novel effect of a probiotic bacterium,” Infection and Immunity, vol. 72, no. 10, pp. 5750–5758, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. Y. Tao, K. A. Drabik, T. S. Waypa et al., “Soluble factors from Lactobacillus GG activate MAPKs and induce cytoprotective heat shock proteins in intestinal epithelial cells,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 290, no. 4, pp. C1018–C1030, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. X. Chen, J. Fruehauf, J. D. Goldsmith et al., “Saccharomyces boulardii inhibits EGF receptor signaling and intestinal tumor growth in Apc(min) mice,” Gastroenterology, vol. 137, no. 3, pp. 914–923, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. D. Ghadimi, M. De Vrese, K. J. Heller, and J. Schrezenmeir, “Effect of natural commensal-origin DNA on toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) signaling cascade, chemokine IL-8 expression, and barrier integritiy of polarized intestinal epithelial cells,” Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 410–427, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. M. G. Vizoso Pinto, M. Rodriguez Gómez, S. Seifert, B. Watzl, W. H. Holzapfel, and C. M. A. P. Franz, “Lactobacilli stimulate the innate immune response and modulate the TLR expression of HT29 intestinal epithelial cells in vitro,” International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 133, no. 1-2, pp. 86–93, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. D. Rachmilewitz, K. Katakura, F. Karmeli et al., “Toll-like receptor 9 signaling mediates the anti-inflammatory effects of probiotics in murine experimental colitis,” Gastroenterology, vol. 126, no. 2, pp. 520–528, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. A. Grabig, D. Paclik, C. Guzy et al., “Escherichia coli strain Nissle 1917 ameliorates experimental colitis via toll-like receptor 2- and toll-like receptor 4-dependent pathways,” Infection and Immunity, vol. 74, no. 7, pp. 4075–4082, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. R. Kaji, J. Kiyoshima-Shibata, M. Nagaoka, M. Nanno, and K. Shida, “Bacterial teichoic acids reverse predominant IL-12 production induced by certain lactobacillus strains into predominant IL-10 production via TLR2-dependent ERK activation in macrophages,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 184, no. 7, pp. 3505–3513, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. A. Seth, F. Yan, D. B. Polk, and R. K. Rao, “Probiotics ameliorate the hydrogen peroxide-induced epithelial barrier disruption by a PKC- And MAP kinase-dependent mechanism,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 294, no. 4, pp. G1060–G1069, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. J. B. Ewaschuk, H. Diaz, L. Meddings et al., “Secreted bioactive factors from Bifidobacterium infantis enhance epithelial cell barrier function,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 295, no. 5, pp. G1025–G1034, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. R. C. Anderson, A. L. Cookson, W. C. McNabb et al., “Lactobacillus plantarum MB452 enhances the function of the intestinal barrier by increasing the expression levels of genes involved in tight junction formation,” BMC Microbiology, vol. 10, article 316, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. Y. Zhou, H. Qin, M. Zhang et al., “Lactobacillus plantarum inhibits intestinal epithelial barrier dysfunction induced by unconjugated bilirubin,” British Journal of Nutrition, vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 390–401, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. R. C. Anderson, A. L. Cookson, W. C. McNabb, W. J. Kelly, and N. C. Roy, “Lactobacillus plantarum DSM 2648 is a potential probiotic that enhances intestinal barrier function,” FEMS Microbiology Letters, vol. 309, no. 2, pp. 184–192, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. J. Karczewski, F. J. Troost, I. Konings et al., “Regulation of human epithelial tight junction proteins by Lactobacillus plantarum in vivo and protective effects on the epithelial barrier,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 298, no. 6, pp. G851–G859, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. L. Khailova, K. Dvorak, K. M. Arganbright et al., “Bifidobacterium bifidum improves intestinal integrity in a rat model of necrotizing enterocolitis,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 297, no. 5, pp. G940–G949, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. R. Mennigen, K. Nolte, E. Rijcken et al., “Probiotic mixture VSL#3 protects the epithelial barrier by maintaining tight junction protein expression and preventing apoptosis in a murine model of colitis,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 296, no. 5, pp. G1140–G1149, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. G. Moorthy, M. R. Murali, and S. N. Devaraj, “Lactobacilli facilitate maintenance of intestinal membrane integrity during Shigella dysenteriae 1 infection in rats,” Nutrition, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 350–358, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. H. Putaala, T. Salusjärvi, M. Nordström et al., “Effect of four probiotic strains and Escherichia coli O157:H7 on tight junction integrity and cyclo-oxygenase expression,” Research in Microbiology, vol. 159, no. 9-10, pp. 692–698, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. S. N. Ukena, A. Singh, U. Dringenberg et al., “Probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 inhibits leaky gut by enhancing mucosal integrity,” PLoS ONE, vol. 2, no. 12, Article ID e1308, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. A. A. Zyrek, C. Cichon, S. Helms, C. Enders, U. Sonnenborn, and M. A. Schmidt, “Molecular mechanisms underlying the probiotic effects of Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 involve ZO-2 and PKCζ redistribution resulting in tight junction and epithelial barrier repair,” Cellular Microbiology, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 804–816, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. K. C. Johnson-Henry, K. A. Donato, G. Shen-Tu, M. Gordanpour, and P. M. Sherman, “Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain GG prevents enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7-induced changes in epithelial barrier function,” Infection and Immunity, vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 1340–1348, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. S. Resta-Lenert and K. E. Barrett, “Probiotics and commensals reverse TNF-α- and IFN-γ-induced dysfunction in human intestinal epithelial cells,” Gastroenterology, vol. 130, no. 3, pp. 731–746, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. S. Matsumoto, T. Hara, T. Hori et al., “Probiotic Lactobacillus-induced improvement in murine chronic inflammatory bowel disease is associated with the down-regulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines in lamina propria mononuclear cells,” Clinical and Experimental Immunology, vol. 140, no. 3, pp. 417–426, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. N. Jandu, Z. J. Zeng, K. C. Johnson-Henry, and P. M. Sherman, “Probiotics prevent enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157 : H7-mediated inhibition of interferon-γ-induced tyrosine phosphorylation of STAT-1,” Microbiology, vol. 155, no. Pt 2, pp. 531–540, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. F. S. Martins, S. D. A. Elian, A. T. Vieira et al., “Oral treatment with Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain UFMG 905 modulates immune responses and interferes with signal pathways involved in the activation of inflammation in a murine model of typhoid fever,” International Journal of Medical Microbiology, vol. 301, no. 4, pp. 359–364, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. C. Reiff, M. Delday, G. Rucklidge et al., “Balancing inflammatory, lipid, and xenobiotic signaling pathways by VSL#3, a biotherapeutic agent, in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease,” Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 1721–1736, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. A. K. Rooj, Y. Kimura, and R. K. Buddington, “Metabolites produced by probiotic Lactobacilli rapidly increase glucose uptake by Caco-2 cells,” BMC Microbiology, vol. 10, article 16, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. P. W. Lin, L. E. S. Myers, L. Ray et al., “Lactobacillus rhamnosus blocks inflammatory signaling in vivo via reactive oxygen species generation,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1205–1211, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. B. Eiseman, W. Silen, G. S. Bascom, and A. J. Kauvar, “Fecal enema as an adjunct in the treatment of pseudomembranous enterocolitis,” Surgery, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 854–859, 1958. View at: Google Scholar
  71. J. Aas, C. E. Gessert, and J. S. Bakken, “Recurrent Clostridium difficile colitis: case series involving 18 patients treated with donor stool administered via a nasogastric tube,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 580–585, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. S. E. Persky and L. J. Brandt, “Treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea by administration of donated stool directly through a colonoscope,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 95, no. 11, pp. 3283–3285, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. S. S. Yoon and L. J. Brandt, “Treatment of refractory/recurrent C. difficile-associated disease by donated stool transplanted via colonoscopy: a case series of 12 patients,” Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 562–566, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. G. Russell, J. Kaplan, M. Ferraro, and I. C. Michelow, “Fecal bacteriotherapy for relapsing Clostridium difficile infection in a child: a proposed treatment protocol,” Pediatrics, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. e239–e242, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. A. Khoruts, J. Dicksved, J. K. Jansson, and M. J. Sadowsky, “Changes in the composition of the human fecal microbiome after bacteriotherapy for recurrent clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea,” Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 354–360, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. X. W. Gao, M. Mubasher, C. Y. Fang, C. Reifer, and L. E. Miller, “Dose-response efficacy of a proprietary probiotic formula of lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285 and lactobacillus casei LBC80R for antibiotic-associated diarrhea and clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea prophylaxis in adult patients,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 105, no. 7, pp. 1636–1641, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. L. V. McFarland, “Systematic review and meta-analysis of saccharomyces boulardii in adult patients,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 16, no. 18, pp. 2202–2222, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. S. Guglielmetti, D. Mora, M. Gschwender, and K. Popp, “Randomised clinical trial: bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75 significantly alleviates irritable bowel syndrome and improves quality of life—a double-blind, placebo-controlled study,” Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 1123–1132, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. C. H. Choi, S. Y. Jo, H. J. Park, S. K. Chang, J.-S. Byeon, and S.-J. Myung, “A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial of saccharomyces boulardii in irritablebowel syndrome: effect on quality of life,” Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. In press. View at: Google Scholar
  80. G. C. Parkes, J. D. Sanderson, and K. Whelan, “Treating irritable bowel syndrome with probiotics: the evidence,” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 187–194, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. P. Moayyedi, A. C. Ford, N. J. Talley et al., “The efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review,” Gut, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 325–332, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. D. M. Brenner, M. J. Moeller, W. D. Chey, and P. S. Schoenfeld, “The utility of probiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 104, no. 4, pp. 1033–1049, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. A. Sood, V. Midha, G. K. Makharia et al., “The probiotic preparation, VSL#3 induces remission in patients with mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis,” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 1202–1209, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. R. Bibiloni, R. N. Fedorak, G. W. Tannock et al., “VSL#3 probiotic-mixture induces remission in patients with active ulcerative colitis,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 100, no. 7, pp. 1539–1546, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. W. Kruis, P. Frič, J. Pokrotnieks et al., “Maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis with the probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 is as effective as with standard mesalazine,” Gut, vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 1617–1623, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  86. M. A. Zocco, L. Z. Dal Verme, F. Cremonini et al., “Efficacy of Lactobacillus GG in maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis,” Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 1567–1574, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. P. Gionchetti, F. Rizzello, U. Helwig et al., “Prophylaxis of pouchitis onset with probiotic therapy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial,” Gastroenterology, vol. 124, no. 5, pp. 1202–1209, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. T. Mimura, F. Rizzello, U. Helwig et al., “Once daily high dose probiotic therapy (VSL#3) for maintaining remission in recurrent or refractory pouchitis,” Gut, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 108–114, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. C. Prantera, M. L. Scribano, G. Falasco, A. Andreoli, and C. Luzi, “Ineffectiveness of probiotics in preventing recurrence after curative resection for Crohn's disease: a randomised controlled trial with Lactobacillus GG,” Gut, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 405–409, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. E. Garcia Vilela, M. De Lourdes De Abreu Ferrari, H. Oswaldo Da Gama Torres et al., “Influence of Saccharomyces boulardii on the intestinal permeability of patients with Crohn's disease in remission,” Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 842–848, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. M. Guslandi, G. Mezzi, M. Sorghi, and P. A. Testoni, “Saccharomyces boulardii in maintenance treatment of Crohn's disease,” Digestive Diseases and Sciences, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 1462–1464, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. J. B. Ewaschuk and L. A. Dieleman, “Probiotics and prebiotics in chronic inflammatory bowel diseases,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 12, no. 37, pp. 5941–5950, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  93. C. Hedin, K. Whelan, and J. O. Lindsay, “Evidence for the use of probiotics and prebiotics in inflammatory bowel disease: a review of clinical trials,” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 307–315, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. S. C. Ng, A. L. Hart, M. A. Kamm, A. J. Stagg, and S. C. Knight, “Mechanisms of action of probiotics: recent advances,” Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 300–310, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  95. K. Alfaleh and D. Bassler, “Probiotics for prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 1, article CD005496, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  96. A. Bousvaros, S. Guandalini, R. N. Baldassano et al., “A randomized, double-blind trial of lactobacillus GG versus placebo in addition to standard maintenance therapy for children with Crohn's disease,” Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 833–839, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. M. Schultz, A. Timmer, H. H. Herfarth, R. B. Sartor, J. A. Vanderhoof, and H. C. Rath, “Lactobacillus GG in inducing and maintaining remission of Crohn's disease,” BMC Gastroenterology, vol. 4, article 5, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. M. Mohamadzadeh, S. Olson, W. V. Kalina et al., “Lactobacilli active human dendritic cells that skew T cells toward T helper 1 polarization,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 102, no. 8, pp. 2880–2885, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. A. L. Hart, K. Lammers, P. Brigidi et al., “Modulation of human dendritic cell phenotype and function by probiotic bacteria,” Gut, vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 1602–1609, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. E. M. Fernandez, V. Valenti, C. Rockel et al., “Anti-inflammatory capacity of selected lactobacilli in experimental colitis is driven by NOD2-mediated recognition of a specific peptidoglycan-derived muropeptide,” Gut, vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 1050–1059, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  101. M. Chamaillard, S. E. Girardin, J. Viala, and D. J. Philpott, “Nods, nalps and naip: intracellular regulators of bacterial-induced inflammation,” Cellular Microbiology, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 581–592, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. J. Wehkamp and E. F. Stange, “Is there a role for defensins in IBD?” Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, vol. 14, supplement 2, pp. S85–S87, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  103. M. Schlee, J. Wehkamp, A. Altenhoefer, T. A. Oelschlaeger, E. F. Stange, and K. Fellermann, “Induction of human β-defensin 2 by the probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 is mediated through flagellin,” Infection and Immunity, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 2399–2407, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. D. Hollander, “Crohn's disease—a permeability disorder of the tight junction?” Gut, vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 1621–1624, 1988. View at: Google Scholar
  105. J. D. Schulzke, S. Ploeger, M. Amasheh et al., “Epithelial tight junctions in intestinal inflammation,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1165, pp. 294–300, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. C. R. Weber, S. C. Nalle, M. Tretiakova, D. T. Rubin, and J. R. Turner, “Claudin-1 and claudin-2 expression is elevated in inflammatory bowel disease and may contribute to early neoplastic transformation,” Laboratory Investigation, vol. 88, no. 10, pp. 1110–1120, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  107. S. Zeissig, N. Bürgel, D. Günzel et al., “Changes in expression and distribution of claudin 2, 5 and 8 lead to discontinuous tight junctions and barrier dysfunction in active Crohn's disease,” Gut, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 61–72, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  108. I. D. R. Arnott, K. Kingstone, and S. Ghosh, “Abnormal intestinal permeability predicts relapse in inactive Crohn disease,” Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 1163–1169, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  109. J. Wyatt, H. Vogelsang, W. Hubl, T. Waldhoer, and H. Lochs, “Intestinal permeability and the prediction of relapse in Crohn's disease,” Lancet, vol. 341, no. 8858, pp. 1437–1439, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  110. P. Lovato, C. Brender, J. Agnholt et al., “Constitutive STAT3 activation in intestinal T cells from patients with Crohn's disease,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 278, no. 19, pp. 16777–16781, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  111. M. Yeganegi, C. G. Leung, A. Martins et al., “Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1-induced IL-10 production in human placental trophoblast cells involves activation of JAK/STAT and MAPK pathways,” Reproductive Sciences, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 1043–1051, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  112. A. Giuliani, G. Pirri, and S. F. Nicoletto, “Antimicrobial peptides: an overview of a promising class of therapeutics,” Central European Journal of Biology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–33, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  113. H. G. Boman, “Peptide antibiotics and their role in innate immunity,” Annual Review of Immunology, vol. 13, pp. 61–92, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  114. M. Zasloff, “Antimicrobial peptides of multicellular organisms,” Nature, vol. 415, no. 6870, pp. 389–395, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  115. B. M. Peters, M. E. Shirtliff, and M. A. Jabra-Rizk, “Antimicrobial peptides: primeval molecules or future drugs?” PLoS Pathogens, vol. 6, no. 10, Article ID e1001067, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  116. J. Wehkamp, E. F. Stange, and K. Fellermann, “Defensin-immunology in inflammatory bowel disease,” Gastroentérologie Clinique et Biologique, vol. 33, supplement 3, pp. S137–144, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  117. Y. Q. Tang, J. Yuan, G. Ösapay et al., “A cyclic antimicrobial peptide produced in primate leukocytes by the ligation of two truncated α-defensins,” Science, vol. 286, no. 5439, pp. 498–502, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  118. A. J. Ouellette and C. L. Bevins, “Paneth cell defensins and innate immunity of the small bowel,” Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 43–50, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  119. J. Wehkamp, K. Fellermann, K. R. Herrlinger, C. L. Bevins, and E. F. Stange, “Mechanisms of disease: defensins in gastrointestinal diseases,” Nature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 406–415, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  120. S. Jager, E. F. Stange, and J. Wehkamp, “Antimicrobial peptides in gastrointestinal inflammation,” International Journal of Inflammation, vol. 2010, Article ID 910283, 11 pages, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  121. C. L. Wilson, A. J. Ouellette, D. P. Satchell et al., “Regulation of intestinal α-defensin activation by the metalloproteinase matrilysin in innate host defense,” Science, vol. 286, no. 5437, pp. 113–117, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  122. L. Peyrin-Biroulet, J. Beisner, G. Wang et al., “Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma activation is required for maintenance of innate antimicrobial immunity in the colon,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 19, pp. 8772–8777, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  123. S. Lala, Y. Ogura, C. Osborne et al., “Crohn's disease and the NOD2 gene: a role for paneth cells,” Gastroenterology, vol. 125, no. 1, pp. 47–57, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  124. J. Wehkamp, J. Harder, M. Weichenthal et al., “NOD2 (CARD15) mutations in Crohn's disease are associated with diminished mucosal α-defensin expression,” Gut, vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 1658–1664, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  125. J. Wehkamp, J. Harder, M. Weichenthal et al., “Inducible and constitutive beta-defensins are differentially expressed in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis,” Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 215–223, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  126. H. G. Boman, “Innate immunity and the normal microflora,” Immunological Reviews, vol. 173, pp. 5–16, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  127. P. T. Liu, M. Schenk, V. P. Walker et al., “Convergence of IL-1β and VDR activation pathways in human TLR2/1-induced antimicrobial responses,” PLoS ONE, vol. 4, no. 6, Article ID e5810, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  128. R. M. Evans, “The steroid and thyroid hormone receptor superfamily,” Science, vol. 240, no. 4854, pp. 889–895, 1988. View at: Google Scholar
  129. S. J. Bensinger and P. Tontonoz, “Integration of metabolism and inflammation by lipid-activated nuclear receptors,” Nature, vol. 454, no. 7203, pp. 470–477, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  130. K. Wang and Y. J. Y. Wan, “Nuclear receptors and inflammatory diseases,” Experimental Biology and Medicine, vol. 233, no. 5, pp. 496–506, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  131. D. J. Mangelsdorf, C. Thummel, M. Beato et al., “The nuclear receptor super-family: the second decade,” Cell, vol. 83, no. 6, pp. 835–839, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  132. C. K. Glass and S. Ogawa, “Combinatorial roles of nuclear receptors in inflammation and immunity,” Nature Reviews Immunology, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 44–55, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  133. L. Fajas, D. Auboeuf, E. Raspé et al., “The organization, promoter analysis, and expression of the human PPARγ gene,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 272, no. 30, pp. 18779–18789, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  134. M. Adachi, R. Kurotani, K. Morimura et al., “Peroxisome proliferator activated receptor γ in colonic epithelial cells protects against experimental inflammatory bowel disease,” Gut, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 1104–1113, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  135. J. Bassaganya-Riera, K. Reynolds, S. Martino-Catt et al., “Activation of PPAR γ and δ by conjugated linoleic acid mediates protection from experimental inflammatory bowel disease,” Gastroenterology, vol. 127, no. 3, pp. 777–791, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  136. L. Dubuquoy, E. Å Jansson, S. Deeb et al., “Impaired expression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γin ulcerative colitis,” Gastroenterology, vol. 124, no. 5, pp. 1265–1276, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  137. C. Rousseaux, B. Lefebvre, L. Dubuquoy et al., “Intestinal antiinflammatory effect of 5-aminosalicylic acid is dependent on peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 201, no. 8, pp. 1205–1215, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  138. M. R. Haussler, G. K. Whitfield, C. A. Haussler et al., “The nuclear vitamin D receptor: biological and molecular regulatory properties revealed,” Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 325–349, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  139. S. Kato, “The function of vitamin D receptor in vitamin D action,” Journal of Biochemistry, vol. 127, no. 5, pp. 717–722, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  140. D. L. Kamen and V. Tangpricha, “Vitamin D and molecular actions on the immune system: modulation of innate and autoimmunity,” Journal of Molecular Medicine, vol. 88, no. 5, pp. 441–450, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  141. J. C. Waterhouse, T. H. Perez, and P. J. Albert, “Reversing bacteria-induced vitamin D receptor dysfunction is key to autoimmune disease,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1173, pp. 757–765, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  142. P. T. Liu, S. R. Krutzik, and R. L. Modlin, “Therapeutic implications of the TLR and VDR partnership,” Trends in Molecular Medicine, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 117–124, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  143. A. F. Gombart, N. Borregaard, and H. P. Koeffler, “Human cathelicidin antimicrobial peptide (CAMP) gene is a direct target of the vitamin D receptor and is strongly up-regulated in myeloid cells by 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3,” FASEB Journal, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 1067–1077, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  144. J. Kong, Z. Zhang, M. W. Musch et al., “Novel role of the vitamin D receptor in maintaining the integrity of the intestinal mucosal barrier,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 294, no. 1, pp. G208–G216, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  145. V. Lagishetty, A. V. Misharin, N. Q. Liu et al., “Vitamin D deficiency in mice impairs colonic antibacterial activity and predisposes to colitis,” Endocrinology, vol. 151, no. 6, pp. 2423–2432, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  146. M. R. Von Essen, M. Kongsbak, P. Schjerling, K. Olgaard, N. Ødum, and C. Geisler, “Vitamin D controls T cell antigen receptor signaling and activation of human T cells,” Nature Immunology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 344–349, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  147. J. Sun, “Vitamin D and mucosal immune function,” Current Opinion in Gastroenterology, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 591–595, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  148. S. Wu and J. Sun, “Vitamin D, vitamin D receptor, and macroautophagy in inflammation and infection,” Discovery Medicine, vol. 11, no. 59, pp. 325–335, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  149. M. T. Cantorna, C. Munsick, C. Bemiss, and B. D. Mahon, “1,25-Dihydroxycholecalciferol prevents and ameliorates symptoms of experimental murine inflammatory bowel disease,” Journal of Nutrition, vol. 130, no. 11, pp. 2648–2652, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  150. T. A. Sentongo, E. J. Semaeo, N. Stettler, D. A. Piccoli, V. A. Stallings, and B. S. Zemel, “Vitamin D status in children, adolescents, and young adults with Crohn disease,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 1077–1081, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  151. M. T. Abreu, Y. Kantorovich, E. A. Vasiliauskas et al., “Measurement of vitamin D levels in inflammatory bowel disease patients reveals a subset of Crohn's disease patients with elevated 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D and low bone mineral density,” Gut, vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 1129–1136, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  152. F. A. Farraye et al., “Use of a novel vitamin d bioavailability test demonstrates that vitamin D absorption is decreased in patients with quiescent crohn's disease,” Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. View at: Google Scholar
  153. S. Wu, A. P. Liao, Y. Xia et al., “Vitamin D receptor negatively regulates bacterial-stimulated NF-κB activity in intestine,” American Journal of Pathology, vol. 177, no. 2, pp. 686–697, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  154. X. Liu, R. Lu, Y. Xia, and J. Sun, “Global analysis of the eukaryotic pathways and networks regulated by Salmonella typhimurium in mouse intestinal infection in vivo,” BMC Genomics, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 722, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  155. D. Kelly, J. I. Campbell, T. P. King et al., “Commensal anaerobic gut bacteria attenuate inflammation by regulating nuclear-cytoplasmic shutting of PPAR-γ and ReIA,” Nature Immunology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 104–112, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  156. S. Yoon, S. Wu, and Y. Zhang, “Probiotic regulation of vitamin D receptor in intestinal inflammation,” Oral Presentation DDW, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  157. E. Gocek and G. P. Studzinski, “Vitamin D and differentiation in cancer Signaling differentiation E. Gocek and G. P. Studzinski,” Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 190–209, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  158. S. Samuel and M. D. Sitrin, “Vitamin D's role in cell proliferation and differentiation,” Nutrition Reviews, vol. 66, supplement 2, no. 10, pp. S116–S124, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  159. M. B. Demay, “Mechanism of vitamin D receptor action,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1068, no. 1, pp. 204–213, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2011 Sonia S. Yoon and Jun Sun. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

2494 Views | 1190 Downloads | 31 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder