Mediators of Inflammation

Mediators of Inflammation / 2018 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2018 |Article ID 8168717 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8168717

Fengna Chu, Mingchao Shi, Yue Lang, Donghui Shen, Tao Jin, Jie Zhu, Li Cui, "Gut Microbiota in Multiple Sclerosis and Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis: Current Applications and Future Perspectives", Mediators of Inflammation, vol. 2018, Article ID 8168717, 17 pages, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8168717

Gut Microbiota in Multiple Sclerosis and Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis: Current Applications and Future Perspectives

Academic Editor: Ronald Gladue
Received25 Oct 2017
Revised22 Feb 2018
Accepted04 Mar 2018
Published02 Apr 2018

Abstract

The gut environment and gut microbiome dysbiosis have been demonstrated to significantly influence a range of disorders in humans, including obesity, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and multiple sclerosis (MS). MS is an autoimmune disease affecting the central nervous system (CNS). The etiology of MS is not clear, and it should involve both genetic and extrinsic factors. The extrinsic factors responsible for predisposition to MS remain elusive. Recent studies on MS and its animal model, experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), have found that gastrointestinal microbiota may play an important role in the pathogenesis of MS/EAE. Thus, gut microbiome adjustment may be a future direction of treatment in MS. In this review, we discuss the characteristics of the gut microbiota, the connection between the brain and the gut, and the changes in gut microbiota in MS/EAE, and we explore the possibility of applying microbiota therapies in patients with MS.

1. Introduction

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune central nervous system (CNS) disease, and experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) is an animal model of MS. The etiology and pathogenesis of MS and EAE remain unknown. Recently, studies have focused on the microbes that colonize the skin and mucosal surfaces and mainly those that may be found in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract [13]. It has been shown that an imbalance in the gut microbiota, called “dysbiosis,” is associated with various diseases, ranging from intestinal diseases, like colorectal cancer, irritable bowel syndrome, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) [4], to other systemic diseases such as obesity [5], malnutrition [6], diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) [7, 8]. In the field of neurology, attention is also focused on the role of the gut microbiota in CNS diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease (PD) [9, 10]. Many recent studies have also found that the gut microbiota plays an important role in MS; this will help us find a new way to treat MS or prevent MS relapse.

2. The Microbiome

Human normal microorganisms consist of bacteria, microeukaryotes, fungi, yeast, archaea, helminths, protozoa, parasites, and viruses/phages, which are mainly distributed in the internal cavity of the body, such as respiratory tract, digestive tract, urogenital tract, and body surface, forming four microecosystems, with more than 95% of them located in the large intestine [11, 12]. All microbes including bacteria, archaea, fungi, and viruses exist in an ecosystem/habitat called microbiota, and the collective genomic, protein, or metabolite content of all the microbes in a given ecosystem/habitat called microbiome, for example, the microbial community, in the gut is called gut microbiota or gut flora [13]. There are about 1014 different populations of microorganisms in the human intestinal tract, which are at least 100 times larger than the number of human genes in the body, and their total weight is approximately 2 kg [14, 15]. Such a large number of intestinal microbes and hosts have evolved over a long period of time and have become an inseparable part of the host and play an important role in maintaining the body healthy. Because of the different physiological state of the human gastrointestinal tract, there are certain differences in the species and distribution of the bacteria, and even in the intestinal and intestinal mucus layers, the microbes is different. The exact species of microbe populations has not yet been determined. However, in recent years, the Metagenomics of the Human Intestinal Tract and the Human Microbiome Project have provided the most integrated view of human-associated microbes, and Hugon et al. list 2172 species isolated in humans, which they classified into 12 different phyla, with 93.5% of them belonging to the Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, and Bacteroidetes phyla [16, 17], and a healthy gut contains large fractions of the phyla Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, including the genera Prevotella, Bacteroides, and Ruminococcus, followed by Verrucomicrobia and Actinobacteria but contains a low number of Proteobacteria phyla members [18]. The colonization of the human gut begins at birth and becomes relatively stable in adulthood. Different ethnicities should have different microbiomes, and the human gut microbiota does not remain constant, as it is affected by numerous factors [19].

2.1. Formation of Gut Microbiota and Influencing Factors

After birth, microbes rapidly colonize the sterile neonatal GI tract, and the microbiota composition partially depends on the delivery mode and whether breast-feeding is done [2022]. It has been hypothesized that the different components of the gut microbiota after birth may have an impact on disease in the future [23]; research has found that a caesarean delivery and formula-feeding are associated with high incidences of infection and allergy diseases [24, 25]. One to 2.5 years after birth, the composition, diversity, and function of the infant microbiome gradually develops to resemble that of adults [26, 27]; in adulthood, most of the bacteria in the body will remain in a relatively stable state, but to the end of the life, the diversity of flora composition will decline and the ratio of Bacteroidetes/Firmicutes will increases; however, the human microbiota displays a remarkable degree of variation within and between individuals [28].

Recent evidence has shown that the adult microbiome is not as stable as previously believed, and there are many important endogenous and exogenous factors for the composition of the intestinal microbial community: (1) Genetic factors: There is an obvious adaptive relationship between host gene composition and bacterial gene composition. The bacteria can synthesize metabolites on the basis of genetic composition. These metabolites interact with each other, maintaining a stable balance between the gut microbiota and the surrounding environment. Even when twins and mother-daughter pairs had lived apart for many years, but they still have more similar microbiota compositions, suggesting that the gut microbiota may be influenced by genetics factors [2931]. (2) Sex: The gut microbiota and sex hormone have been reported to influence each other, and research has found that males exhibited increased abundance of Bacteroides and Prevotella compared with females [32], and sex differences in the microbiome parallel immune, metabolic changes, it is important in risk and resilience of the disease throughout the lifespan [33, 34]. New studies in mice have found that adoptive transferred male microbiota to recipient females can result in elevated testosterone and metabolomic changes and delay the onset and lessen the severity of disease, which demonstrated that the female-biased risk for autoimmune disorders is significantly impacted by sex differences in the gut microbiome [35, 36]. (3) Diet: Dietary habits and food types can influence microbial composition [3740]. (4) Drugs: Antibiotic and other drugs can easily affect the components of the microbiome [41, 42]. (5) Others: Other implicated factors include lifestyle, illness, smoking, drug addiction, place of residence, and the climate [43, 44].

2.2. Normal Function of the Gut Microbiota

An intimate mutualistic relationship between the gut microbiota and the host has been developed following thousands of years, and the gut microbes have become either harmless or beneficial to the host, maintaining the balance of the systemic and local immune systems. The human gut microbiota can synthesize and secrete essential vitamins to support immune regulation, endothelial growth, and the development of the CNS. Lactic acid bacteria can produce vitamin B12 that cannot be synthesized by other animals, fungi, or plants; Bifidobacteria are the main producers for folate, which is involved in DNA synthesis and DNA repair; other vitamins, including vitamin K, nicotinic acid, biotin, riboflavin, pantothenic acid, pyridoxine, and thiamine can also be synthesized by the human gut microbiota [4548].

The beneficial effects of the gut microbiota on host metabolism are often considered to be mediated by short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs). These SCFAs can be absorbed in the GI tract by epithelial cells and be involved in the regulation of cellular processes like cytotaxis, proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis [49].

Normal flora can systemically and locally stimulate the development of innate and adaptive immune systems and is required for normal immune system maturation, including gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT) development.

The enteric nervous system (ENS) is one of the main divisions of the autonomic nervous system and regulates the functions of the gastrointestinal tract, which has been described as a “second brain” [50]. ENS controls the motility, exocrine and endocrine secretions, and microcirculation of the gastrointestinal tract; it is also involved in regulating immune and inflammatory processes [51, 52].

2.3. Connection between Brain and Gut

At the end of the 19th century, the American scientist Gershon first described the concept of gut-brain connection [50]. Over the past decade, a large number of animal and preclinical studies have proven that the gut microbiota is involved in regulating physiological processes in humans, such as host metabolism and immunity, and can modulate brain signals, triggering bidirectional signaling via the microbiome-gut-brain axis through the endocrine, immune, nervous, and metabolic systems [53, 54]. This axis includes a variety of molecular pathways interacting with each other (Figure 1).

2.3.1. Neural Regulation Pathway

The gut microbiota can secrete and regulate neurotransmitters of the central and peripheral nervous systems; intestinal lymphocytes can be stimulated by local environmental changes in the lumen (including changes in the gut microbiota) and release cytokines to activate the endocrine or paracrine systems and consequently affect the CNS. At the same time, the CNS can directly impact the gut via sympathetic nervous system or parasympathetic nervous system, especially of the vagus nerve; the regulations are mainly mediated by the secretion of catecholamines or acetylcholine, which influence ENS circuits [55, 56]. Gut microbes also produce a range of important components that are implicated in neuroactive and immune regulation, including secreting γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA), histamine, serotonin, dopamine, and others [57, 58].

2.3.2. Endocrine Regulation Pathway

The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis comprises the hypothalamus and the pituitary and adrenal glands. When confronted with stress or other stimulants, the HPA axis finally releases glucocorticoids, mineralocorticoids, or catecholamines; all of them can alter gut microbiota composition and increase gut epithelium permeability and immune responses [5961]. Increased corticosterone levels in stressed mice lead to intestinal dysbiosis that is characterized by the Clostridium genus increase and the Bacteroides genus decrease [62]. Because glucocorticoids have both proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory effects on the peripheral and CNS immune cells, and inflammatory and autoimmune diseases are often associated with impaired HPA axis functionality, such as in RA, IBD, and MS [61, 63, 64].

2.3.3. Immunoregulation Pathway

Gut microbes can modulate the immune response in a variety of ways, such as affecting antigen presenting effect and regulating the production of cytokines and the function of lymphocytes. The gut microbiota plays an important role in the fermentation of indigestible carbohydrates into the three most abundant SCFAs: acetate, propionate, and butyrate. In the human gut, acetate is produced by gut anaerobes, propionate is significantly produced by Bacteroidetes, and butyrate production is mainly by Firmicutes [6567]. These molecules activate the brain’s immune response, which can trigger inflammation in the nervous system and cause a series of neurological symptoms. Butyrate has anti-inflammatory and anticancer functions, and it constitutes an important energy source for colonocytes and has an effect in inhibiting histone deacetylase (epigenetics) [68], generating intestinal and circulating regulatory T (Treg) cells [69], maintaining blood-brain barrier (BBB) integrity [70], and modulating CNS-microglia activity [71]. SCFAs have also been known to have strong anti-inflammatory effects. They can influence the production of cytokines and have relationship with the G-protein-coupled receptor 43 (GPR43) to elicit an anti-inflammatory effect [72]. The GI microbiome can regulate the development of the host innate and adaptive immune systems via the gut–CNS-axis. The microbes are necessary for host immunity generation because in the GI tract, they can format GALTs. The GALT represents the largest immune holder in the human body, containing nearly 80% of the immune compartments. The regulatory T cells and autoimmune pathogenic T cells may maturate in the GALT and suppress autoimmune response outside the gut [15, 73]. Studies with germ-free (GF) mice have shown a thinner mucus layer and Peyer’s patches and decrease numbers of secreting IgA plasma cells, CD4+ T cells, and antimicrobial peptides [7476]. In GF mice, the lymph nodes and spleens are abnormally developed, with decreased numbers of B and T cells in the germinal centers and parafollicular region [77].

2.3.4. Metabolic System Regulation Pathway

Gut microbes modulate brain function by the release of metabolites such as immune antigens (peptidoglycan, lipopolysaccharide (LPS), and polysaccharide A (PSA)) with immunological effects [78, 79]. Normal bacteria can stimulate the production of cross-reactive antibodies (mainly IgA). These antibodies are secreted into the intestine and can play an important role in preventing bacterial infection. PSA derived from Bacteroides fragilis is known as an immunomodulator with inhibitory function in CD39+ FoxP3+ T cells and Treg cells [80]. Lipid 654, produced by Bacteroidetes in the human gut, can be a ligand for mouse TLR2 and human and exist in the systemic circulation of healthy humans [81] (Figure 1).

3. MS/EAE and Gut Microbes

3.1. MS and EAE

MS is an autoimmune disease in the CNS, which is the main cause of disability in young people in Western countries [82, 83]. Pathological changes associated with MS include the loss of BBB integrity, inflammatory cell infiltration of perivascular tissues, destruction the myelin layer, and axonal damage [84]. The clinical features may be diverse and include limb weakness, paresthesia, fatigue, blurred vision, and cognitive deficits, among others [85]. EAE is the most widely used animal model of MS and resembles its pathological, clinical, and immunological features [86]. The immunological changes in MS/EAE are characterized by increasing proinflammatory cell infiltration, followed by CD4+ T cells with the Th1 or Th17 phenotypes, monocytes, macrophages, inflammatory dendritic cells, and B cells, and decreasing in CD8+ T cells, CD4+ CD25+ Forkhead box 3 (FoxP3+) Treg cells, and impaired Treg function [84, 8790].

The etiology of MS remains relatively unknown, and it may include both genetic and environmental factors. Genetic factors: MS often occurs in young women, and the ratio of female to male in MS has increased to an incidence of 3 : 1 over the past decades, indicating a potential role of hormones in the occurrence of MS. Androgens have the ability to reduce the natural killer (NK) cells, toll-like receptor 4, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), while they upregulate anti-inflammatory molecule production, such as interleukin-10 (IL-10). In contrast, estrogens may enhance the production of the proinflammatory cytokines like IL-1, IL-6, and TNF-α [34, 91]. Over 100 genetic risk factors have been identified for MS, including HLA alleles (HLA-DRB11501, DR4, and DR3), transcription factors, adhesion molecules, chemokines, cytokines, and micro-RNA genes [92]. However, the MS is not fully controlled by genetics, as monozygotic twins, sharing 100% of genetic material, show an approximately 25–30% lifetime risk for MS when one of them has been diagnosed, suggesting that the genetic background could be interacting with other risk factors [93, 94]. Environmental factors: Previously, it was reported that living at higher latitudes would pose a higher disease risk because of more limited sun exposure leading to possible vitamin D deficiency [95]. Other environment factors include smoking, antibiotic exposure, vaccination, obesity, ethanol abuse, EB virus infection, exposure to air pollutants including PMs (particulate matters), heavy metals, and airborne biological pollutants such as lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and gut microbiota changes [96101]. Recently, it was found that many of the risk factors listed, including reduced vitamin D intake, smoking, hypercaloric Western diet, vaccination, stress, and alcohol addiction, may be related to the gut microbiome dysbiosis [102]. A reduced vitamin D intake can alter the immune responses, producing FoxP3+ Treg cells and reducing T cells in the gut, which could affect gut microbial populations directly [103]. Smoking can influence the gut microbiome in humans; after smoking cessation, microbial diversity increases and the overall composition of the microbiome changes [104]. Therefore, the dysbiosis of gut microbiota may be involved in the pathogenesis of MS.

3.2. The Microbiome in EAE

The impact of the gut microbiota on the development of MS has been rooted in several preclinical studies in EAE. The gut microbiota plays an essential role in the occurrence and development of the immune system in EAE; it can regulate BBB permeability, limit astrocyte pathogenicity, activate microglia, and express myelin genes [70, 71, 105, 106] (Table 1).


AuthorInterventionFunctionIF increaseIF decreaseMicrobial changes

Lee et al. [108]GF mice versus CC miceResistant to the development of EAE in GF miceCD4+ CD25+ Foxp3+ TregsIFN-γ and IL-17A
Berer et al. [109]GF mice versus SPF RR miceReduce the percentage of EAE in GF miceCD4+ T cellsTH17 T-cell receptor (TCRablow)
Ochoa-Reparaz et al. [42]Antibiotic (ampicillin, neomycin sulfate, metronidazole, vancomycin), minocyclineProtects mice against EAE; reduced the severity of EAEIL-13, IL-10
FoxP3+ Treg cells
CD4+ or CD8+ T cell
IFN-γ, MIP-1α, MIP-1β, MCP-1, IL-17, and IL-6
Yokote et al. [110]Antibiotics (KCV)Suppressed the development of EAEIFN-γ, TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-17
Th17
iNKT cells
Reduction of Lactobacillus murinus and Bacteroides fragilis and increase in Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron
Ochoa-Reparaz et al. [114](1) Antibiotics
(2) Antibiotics + WT B. fragilis
(3) Antibiotics + △PSA B. fragilis
(4) Mice treated with PBS
(1) Antibiotics: reduce EAE severity; delays clinical onset.
(2) Antibiotics + WT B. fragilis: protect against disease; reduced clinical severity
(1) Antibiotics: IL-13, GATA-3
(2) WT B. fragilis: IL-10, IFN-γ, IL-12, GATA-3, SMAD-3
(3) △PSA B. fragilis: RORγt, IL-17, and T-bet
(1) Antibiotics: T-bet, IFN-γ, IL-17 and IL-6
(2) WT B. fragilis: RORgt, IL-17
(3) △PSA B. fragilis: GATA-3, IL-10, and IL-13
In WT or △PSA B. fragilis group: increase Bacteroides spp. counts
Ochoa-Reparaz et al. [157](1) Antibiotic (ampicillin, metronidazole, vancomycin, and neomycin sulfate)
(2) Adoptively transferred CD5+ B cells
Both groups can reduce the severity of EAEEnhances the frequency of IL-10 producing CD1dhigh CD5+ B cells
Ochoa-Reparaz et al. [165]Oral administration with purified PSABoth prevention and therapeutic effect on EAECD103 expressing
Wang et al. [116, 184]Treatment with PSA versus PBSDelayed clinical onset and progression of EAECD39+ CD4 T cells
CD39+ Foxp3+ CD4 Tregs
Jun et al. [122, 123]Treatment with Salmonella typhimuriumReduced clinical development and protection against EAEIL-17, IL-4, IL-10, and IL-13
Th1 and Th17
TGF-β, IFN-γ, Foxp3+ CD4+ T cells
Ochoa-Reparaz et al. [115]Treatment with Salmonella typhimuriumReduced clinical scores and reduced disease durationCNS inflammatory cell infiltration; CD25+ CD4+ T cells
FoxP3+ Treg cells
Ezendam et al. [113]Bifidobacterium animalisReduced the duration of clinical symptoms of EAE
Ezendam and van Loveren [166]Lactobacillus casei ShirotaIncreased the duration of clinical symptoms of EAE
Lavasani et al. [111]LactobacilliPrevents and therapy of EAEIL-4, IL-10 and TGF-β1
IL-27
TNF-α, IFN-γ
Takata et al. [118]P. acidilacticiPrevent and therapy of EAECD4+ IL-10 producing cells
CD4+ FoxP3+ cells
Maassen and Claassen [119]LactobacilliSuppress the disease
Kwon et al. [149]Orally IRT5Prevent and therapy of EAEIL-2, IL-4, IL-10Th1/Th17; IFNγ, TNFα, and IL17
Rezende et al. [170]L. lactisPrevented the development of EAEIL-10, CD4+ FoxP3+ Treg cells and CD4+ LAP+ TregsIL-17
Chitrala et al. [121]CD44 deletion and fecal transferAmelioration of EAEChange in SCFAs: propionic acid and i-butyric acidDominant in Bacteroidetes phylum and low in Firmicutes phylum.
Scott et al. [41]Omeprazole treatmentNo difference in clinical scoresIncrease unidentified bacteria in S24-7 and decrease in Akkermansia muciniphila and Coprococcus sp.
Mangalam et al. [120]Administration of Prevotella histicolaSuppressed EAE inducedCD4+ FoxP3+ Tregs
DCs, IL-10
IL-17 and IFN-γ

IF: inflammatory factor; GF: germ-free; CC: conventionally colonized; EAE: experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis; CD: cluster of differentiation; Foxp3: Forkhead box P3; Tregs: regulatory T cells; IFN-γ: interferon-γ; IL: interleukin; RR: relapsing–remitting; MIP: macrophage inflammatory protein; MCP: monocyte chemoattractant protein; KCV: kanamycin, colistin, and vancomycin; TNF-α: tumor necrosis factor-α; PBS: phosphate buffer solution; iNKT cell: invariant natural killer T cell; WT B. fragilis: wild type B. fragilis; △PSA B. fragilis: PSA-deficient B. fragilis; RORγ: RAR-related orphan receptor gamma; T-bet: T-box transcription factor TBX21; DCs: dendritic cell; TGF-β: transform growth factor-β; PSA: polysaccharide A; IRT5: consisting of Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus reuteni, Bifidobacterium bifidum, and Streptococcus thermophiles; LAP+: latency-associated peptide; Hsp: heat shock proteins.

Germ-free (GF) mice show significant defects in both systemic lymphoid and gut-associated tissues, and Peyer’s patches are hypoplastic in such animals with greatly decreased number of plasma cells, which produce resident CD4+ T cells and IgA [107]. Although EAE can be induced in GF mice, the severity of EAE was obviously reduced [108, 109], due to the inability to form more pathogenic T cells such as Th17 cells. However, when these mice are colonized with segmented filamentous bacteria, they show a recirculate inflammation in EAE and enhanced disease severity, which increases Th17 cells in the CNS [108]. The gut microbiota may be necessary in the normal BBB development, since germ-free mice have disrupted BBB tight junction and increased BBB permeability compared to controls [70].

Because the gut microbiota has immune regulation functions, attempts have been made to treat EAE by inducing changes in the gut microbiota. Ochoa reported that treatment with oral antibiotics in EAE can reduce intestinal symbiotic gut and delay the development of EAE, while the intraperitoneal injection of antibiotics in mice had no obvious impact on the development of EAE, which suggests that gut microbiota changes are associated with the development of EAE [42]. The protective effect of antibiotic treatment in EAE is related with a regulation of the abnormal in T cell responses in the CNS and the GI tract, diminishing proinflammatory cells, like Th1 and Th17 cells and their cytokines IFN and IL-17A and enhancing anti-inflammatory response, including increasing secretion of FoxP3+ Treg cells, IL-10 and IL-13 [108112]. Except for changes in T-cell subsets, B cells can recruit and dendritic cells can activate Th1 and Th17 cells in EAE [108, 109]. Some studies have suggested that some bacterial strains have beneficial effects on EAE by protecting mice from disease exacerbation [113116]. One of the common bacteria B. fragilis has the ability to produce polysaccharide A (PSA), which can induce naive T-cell differentiation to produce IL-10 FoxP3+ CD4 Treg cells and protect mice from CNS demyelinating diseases [114, 117]. The oral administration of PSA could have both preventive effect and therapeutic effect to protect against EAE [102]. Other bacteria such as the Bifidobacterium may also decrease EAE symptoms [113]. The oral administration of Lactobacillus spp. and other lactic acid-producing bacteria have been demonstrated to reduce the clinical score of EAE [111, 118, 119]. Mangalam recently showed that Prevotella histicola can suppress disease in EAE, as it induced CD4+ FoxP3+ regulatory T cells and tolerogenic dendritic cells and suppressed macrophages [13, 120]. CD44 deficiency alters three phyla (Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, and Proteobacteria) of gut microbes, which in turn may play a crucial role in suppressing inflammatory T-cell differentiation accounting for the amelioration of EAE [121]. Autoreactive CD4+-induced intraepithelial lymphocytes, which are influenced by stimuli from the gut environment, can also suppress activity against T cell-mediated EAE [73]. The oral administration of Salmonella typhimurium could increase Treg frequency and decrease Th1 and Th17 cells, which would lead to a decrease in EAE clinical score [115, 122, 123]. Additionally, recent studies have indicated that Bacteroides fragilis and Clostridia clusters XIVa and IV, which derived from human feces, may have the ability to induce Foxp3+ Treg and be able to suppress inflammatory response in EAE [114, 124, 125].

3.3. Gut Microbiota in MS

As mentioned above, the gut bacteria have a symbiotic relationship with the host, which could help the host maintain a healthy stable state. At the phylum level, the fecal microbiota is mainly constituted of Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes and with smaller amounts of Verrucomicrobia, Euryarchaeota, and Proteobacteria. In the last few years, several studies have demonstrated that patients with MS exhibit gut microbial dysbiosis with both enrichment and depletion of certain bacterial populations compared to healthy controls (Table 2). Recently, the studies reported that fecal content isolated from the patients with MS transferred to mice increased EAE incidence or severity, which provide the evidence that MS-derived microbiota contain factors that regulate adaptive autoimmune responses and precipitate an MS-like autoimmune disease in a transgenic mouse model, suggesting the potential functional effects associated with altered microbiotas observed in MS and targeting microbiota as a therapeutic strategy in MS [126, 127].


AuthorSubjectTreatmentBacterial in MS↑Bacterial in MS↓Bacterial in treatment↑Bacterial in treatment↓Other results

Jangi et al. [128]MS
HC
IFN-β
GA
Untreated
Methanobrevibacter
Akkermansia
ButyricimonasPrevotella
Sutterella
Sarcina
Tremlett et al. [134]Children ≤ 18
MS
HC
IFN-β
GA
Untreated
(1) No difference in immune markers between MS and HC.
(2) Associations between immune markers (Th17, Tregs) and gut microbiota (Bacteroidetes and Actinobacteria) had been noted.
Tremlett et al. [132]Children ≤ 18
MS
HC
IFN-β
GA
Natalizumab

Corticosteroids

Untreated
Desulfovibrionaceae (Bilophila, Desulfovibrio, Christensenellaceae)Lachnospiraceae
Ruminococcaceae
(1) Observed children very early in their MS which close to MS onset.
(2) Onset of MS with more subtle changes rather than in the community composition.
Branton et al. [143]PPMS
RRMS
SPMS
HC
Actinobacteria in RRMS
Proteobacteria in PPMS
Actinobacteria in PP-MS(1) Using brain biopsies for MS, and RNA sequence analysis for bacteria.
(2) Composition of the bacteria maybe different from gut.
Wilson et al. [137]MS
HC
Actinobacteria
Bifidobacterium
Streptococcus
Bacteroides, Faecalibacterium,
Prevotella, Anaerostipes
Clostridia XIVa and IV Clusters
Tremlett et al. [133]MS IFN-β
GA
Natalizumab

Untreated
Firmicutes
Archaea Euryarchaeota
FusobacteriaAbsence (versus presence) of Fusobacteria was associated with relapse risk
Cantarel et al. [138]MS
HC
GA
Untreated
Vitamin D
RuminococcusFaecalibacterium, BacteroidaceaeFaecalibacteriumFaecalibacterium increased for GA naïve MS relative to GA-treated MS and HC.
Rumah et al. [139]RRMS
SPMS
HC
C. perfringens type A
Chen et al. [140]MS
HC
IFN-β
GA
Natalizumab

Untreated
Pseudomonas, Mycoplana, Haemophilus, Blautia,
Dorea
Parabacteroides, Adlercreutzia,
Prevotella
Rumah et al. [161]Fingolimod
DMF
Teriflunomide
C. perfringensInhibition of C. perfringens growth may contribute to the clinical efficacy of MS

MS: multiple sclerosis; HC: health control; GA: glatiramer acetate; IFN-β: beta-interferon; PPMS: primary progressive multiple sclerosis; RRMS: relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis; SPMS: secondary progressive multiple sclerosis; DMF: dimethyl fumarate. ↑ means increase and ↓ means decrease.

Jangi et al. showed increases in Methanobrevibacter (Euryarchaeota phylum) and in Akkermansia (Verrucomicrobia phylum) and decreases in Butyricimonas in MS, which correlates with the gene expression of interferon signaling, dendritic cell maturation, and NF-kB signaling pathways in circulating monocytes and T cells [128]. In treated patients with MS with interferon-β (IFN-β) and glatiramer acetate (GA), there was an increased number of Sutterella and Prevotella and a decreased number of Sarcina compared to those in untreated patients [128]. Akkermansia have immunoregulatory effects on changing mucin into SCFA, and they could also play a reverse role in degrading the mucus layer in proinflammation function [129, 130]. The Butyricimonas species are butyrate-producing bacteria and have anti-inflammatory action by inducing Treg cells in the gut, and a decrease in Butyricimonas will decrease SCFA production [131]. Tremlett conducted three experiments in pediatric MS and found that Firmicutes, Archaea Euryarchaeota, and Proteobacteria (Desulfovibrionaceae) increase in patients with MS, while Lachnospira (Lachnospiraceae), Verrucomicrobia (Ruminococcaceae), and Fusobacteria decrease, and MS in children with the absence (versus presence) of Fusobacteria was associated with relapse risk [132134]. Tremlett found no difference in immune markers between MS and controls; however, she discovered that Bacteroidetes were inversely associated with Th17 only in MS and Fusobacteria correlated with Tregs only in controls [134]. A study with 20 patients with MS and 40 healthy controls in Japan demonstrated that altered intestinal microbiota in patients with relapsing remitting MS (RRMS) involved increased Actinobacteria, Bifidobacterium, and Streptococcus and decreased Bacteroides, Faecalibacterium, Prevotella, Anaerostipes, and Clostridia XIVa and IV clusters. Clostridium clusters XIVa and IV constitute a 10–40% of the bacteria in the healthy gut [135137]. The MS patients with expanded disability status score who received GA treatment were shown to have larger numbers of Bacteroidaceae, Ruminococcus, Lactobacillaceae, and Clostridium compared to the numbers seen in untreated patients [138]. After vitamin D supplementation, Faecalibacterium increases in GA naive MS relative to GA-treated MS and healthy controls [138]. Rumah et al. isolated epsilon toxin- (ETX-) producing Clostridium perfringens type B from a young woman with MS and found that 10% of their patients with MS had ETX-specific antibodies compared to only 1% of controls. ETX can disrupt the BBB and bind with myelin, which may be a potential trigger of MS [139]. In contrast, Clostridium perfringens type A which is commensal with humans was nearly 50% in healthy controls and only 23% in MS patients [139]. Chen et al. also reported dysbiosis in 31 patients and 36 controls in a study with patients with RRMS and increased abundance of Pseudomonas, Mycoplana, Haemophilus, Blautia, and Dorea genera and depleted Parabacteroides, Adlercreutzia, and Prevotella in patients with MS [140]. Dorea have been considered to be part of the healthy gut microbiota, but its higher abundance in patients with MS and IBD has suggested a proinflammatory role for this bacterium, and Schirmer et al. showed that Doreacerat in species can induce IFN-γ, metabolize sialic acids, and degrade mucin for its proinflammatory functions [13, 141, 142]. Apart from the gut, one study also reported the presence of bacteria in brain biopsies. Biopsy samples of brain white matter showed a higher abundance of Actinobacteria in RRMS and Proteobacteria in primary progressive MS (PPMS) and a decrease of Actinobacteria in PPMS [143]. Recently, Farrokhi et al. demonstrated unique lipopeptide bacteria that originate from serine lipopeptide, lipid 654, which is produced by some Bacteroidetes commensal species, providing further evidence for an association between the bacteria and MS. Kleinewietfeld et al. demonstrated that lipid 654 is expressing at lower levels in the MS patients’ serum than in healthy controls’. So lipid 654 may be a useful biomarker to evaluate MS activity [144, 145].

Overall, patients with MS usually have gut dysbiosis and often reduced numbers of Faecalibacterium, Bacteroidaceae, and Prevotella. After drug therapy, the gut microbiota of patients with MS changes; thus, regulating gut bacteria could a future direction for treatment in MS.

4. Treatments in MS

Currently, the primary goal of therapy in MS is symptom improvement after a disease attack, preventing new attacks and decreasing the rate of neurodegeneration in the CNS. Existing therapies available for patients mainly rely on nonspecific treatments, such as corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, and immunomodulating drugs, which often result in drug resistance or severe side effects [146]. As mentioned above, the gut microbiota plays an important role in the development of MS. Alterations in the gut microbiota in MS/EAE can also influence the clinical symptoms and inflammatory factors, which could help us find a new strategy or target to treat MS.

4.1. Dietary Modification

As mentioned earlier, dietary habits can affect intestinal microbe composition. There is an obvious difference in the gut microbiota composition between obese and normal-weight individuals, and obese individuals have reduced diversity in their microbiome especially at a lower level of Bacteroidetes [30]. Studies on the effect of Westernized diet with high fat on mice have shown changes in the gut flora, with an increasing in proinflammatory plasma free fatty acids and increased severity in EAE [147, 148]. The gut microbiota in the mice can be changed easily within only one day when their diet switches from a plant polysaccharide-rich, low-fat diet to a high-sugar/high-fat Western diet, which also changes microbiome metabolic pathways and alters the gene expression of the microbiome [102]. A restricted calorie diet can improve the EAE symptoms, whereas a high-salt diet causes disease exacerbation in EAE by promoting the expansion of macrophages and proinflammatory T cells, and Th17 differentiation, and also causing restraint in remyelination [113, 118, 149152]. Middle- and long-chain fatty acids from dietary intake or microbial production promote pathogenic T-cell differentiation in the gut and then induce CNS inflammation. Conversely, SCFA can lead to disease amelioration by protective regulatory T-cell expansion [153]. A study also showed a similar trends on MS in human, suggesting that high sodium intake would worsen the disease [154]. Vitamin D levels are changed in the gut microbiome in MS, which can promote the differentiation of Treg, and the level of Vitamin D is important in maintaining microbiome system balance [103, 155, 156]. Studies have recently showed a direct connection between dietary tryptophan and the symptoms of EAE; deficiency of the antihyaluronidase reaction in astrocytes or lack of dietary tryptophan will fail to recover during the chronic stage of EAE [92].

4.2. Drugs

Antibiotic drugs can easily affect the components of the microbiome. Numerous studies have found that oral antibiotics can reduce in intestinal symbiotic gut and delay the development of EAE [42, 110, 114, 157, 158]. Broad-spectrum antibiotics can alter the population of T cells in the GALT and in peripheral lymphoid tissues to reduce the susceptibility to EAE, and the total number of Foxp3+ Tregs was significantly increased with a corresponding increase in IL-10 production [159]. A study that administered ciprofloxacin in healthy volunteers over a 10-month period found that the fecal microbiota reached a stable state similar, yet distinct, from the pretreatment state [160]. Minocycline is a kind of tetracycline antibiotic that often used for treating acne, which was also used to reduce disease severity in EAE both prophylactically and therapeutically [137]. Antibiotic therapy may be beneficial in the treatment of MS.

Other drugs, such as fingolimod, teriflunomide, and dimethyl fumarate, have immunomodulatory functions and have been shown to inhibit C. perfringens growth; therefore, the inhibition of C. perfringens may contribute to the clinical efficacy of these disease-modifying drugs [161].

4.3. Probiotics Treatment

Studies have suggested that probiotics can influence systemic immune responses, and the mechanisms behind the efficacy of probiotics may include maintaining the function of the gastrointestinal–epithelial barrier, increasing antimicrobial peptide production, and helping the activation of the host immune system in response to pathogens. Thus, probiotics could be used as adjuvant therapy to treat immune-mediated diseases [162, 163].

In recent years, an increasing number of animal experiments have provided evidence that the administration of probiotics can improve CNS symptoms. Long bifidobacterium (b. Longum), Breve bifidobacterium, Bifidobacterium infantis, Lactobacillus helveticus, Rhamnose lactobacillus, plant Lactobacillus, and Lactobacillus casei have been shown to effectively improve behavior, such as anxiety and depression, in animal models [164].

Infection with Lactobacillus casei Shirota or oral Lactobacillus farciminis, Bifidobacterium bifidum, Bacteroides fragilis, and Bifidobacterium animalis in mice resulted in Treg cell induction by promoting the secretion of IL-10, which was followed by IFN-γ, TNF-α, and IL-17 reduction and inflammatory Th1/Th17 decrease, and were shown to be EAE resistant or reduced the symptoms of MS [111, 113, 114, 118, 149, 165, 166].

Takata et al. found that Candida kefyr (C. kefyr) could alleviate the severity EAE symptoms. The bacteria can reduce the quantity of intestinal lamina propria Thl7 cells and cause IL-6 decline; at the same time, Tregs in the mesenteric lymph nodes and CDl03+ regulatory dendritic cells increase. The analysis of 16s-rRNA in rats showed the increased incidence of Lactobacillus in the feces and decrease in polymorphic Bacillus [167].

The periodontal Porphyromonas gingivalis may enhance glial cell activation and proinflammatory responses and exacerbate EAE [168, 169]. In contrast, Candida kefyr found that fermented foods can reduce the EAE [167].

Recently, studies have shown that using heat-killed bacteria like probiotic Pediococcu sacidilactici strain R037, PSA purified from B. fragilis [165], and heat shock protein 65 (Hsp65) produced from the Lactococcus lactis [170] also reduced the severity of EAE [114, 115, 118, 167, 170]. These findings suggest that bacteria-derived products may have therapeutic potential in MS and EAE.

4.4. Fecal Microbial Transplantation (FMT)

Currently, FMT has been paid wide attention for restoring intestinal microecological balance, which may be significantly efficacious and have less adverse reactions. Now FMT’s adaptive diseases has been extended from the initial intestinal disorders to the metabolism, neurosis, autoimmunity, allergic diseases, and cancer prevention [171173]. The results of clinical trials have shown that FMT can improve the walking ability in MS and alleviate autistic behavior as well as improve the neurological symptoms of PD [171, 174]. Borody et al. reported three patients with MS with severe constipation treated with FMT, which reduced the neurological symptoms and normalized walking. Unfortunately, the study had a small sample and was uncontrolled [175]. So far, FMT has been limited to individual cases, and clinical applications require more rigorous scientific evidence and human experimental verification in large samples.

4.5. Others

Parasites, in particular helminths or worms, have an effect on Th2 cell induction to produce anti-inflammatory cytokines, including IL-4, IL-10, IL-13, and TGF-b [176]. Helminths have provided therapeutic effects in patients suffering from MS and ulcerative colitis [176]. In addition, patients with MS naturally infected with helminths had fewer relapses than uninfected patients, and elimination of the parasites worsened their condition [177, 178]. Based on these findings, helminths may be a new method of MS treatment.

As described above, the alterations in the microbial composition of the gut may drive disease, which is a process called as dysbiosis. In recent years, more and more evidence suggest that the dysbiosis of the gut microbiome may be the cause of MS and other disorders, such as depression and Parkinson’s disease [179181]. However, the pathogenesis of these disorders is more complex than the dysbiosis of gut microbiome speculated [182], which may be one of the pathogenic factors for driving these disorders. Also it might be an alteration of microbial architecture from healthy condition with immune balance shifting toward an immune imbalance with inflammatory phenotype [183].

5. Conclusion

This review focused on exploring the complex roles of the alterations in the gut microbiome in MS and EAE. Dysbiosis in the gut microbiome may be one of the causes of the numerous diseases, including MS. Gut therapies including dietary modification, drug treatment, probiotics, FTX, and perhaps helminth treatment may be used in MS in the future. However, there is still a long way to go, as more rigorous scientific evidence with larger sample sizes are required for clinical application.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by grants from The First Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun, International Science and Technology Cooperation Program of Jilin Provincial Science and Technology Development of China (no. 20150414011GH); Norman Bethune Cultivation Plan of Jilin University (no. 2015320); the National Natural Science Foundation (nos. 81471216, 81671186, 81671177, and 31600820); and the Swedish Research Council (2015-03005).

References

  1. A. Perez-Lopez, J. Behnsen, S. P. Nuccio, and M. Raffatellu, “Mucosal immunity to pathogenic intestinal bacteria,” Nature Reviews Immunology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 135–148, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. C. Reinoso Webb, I. Koboziev, K. L. Furr, and M. B. Grisham, “Protective and pro-inflammatory roles of intestinal bacteria,” Pathophysiology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 67–80, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. E. C. Rosser and C. Mauri, “A clinical update on the significance of the gut microbiota in systemic autoimmunity,” Journal of Autoimmunity, vol. 74, pp. 85–93, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. S. Fraune and T. C. Bosch, “Why bacteria matter in animal development and evolution,” BioEssays, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 571–580, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. A. L. Kau, P. P. Ahern, N. W. Griffin, A. L. Goodman, and J. I. Gordon, “Human nutrition, the gut microbiome and the immune system,” Nature, vol. 474, no. 7351, pp. 327–336, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. S. P. Adrian Budhram, M. Kremenchutzky, and M. Silverman, “Breaking down the gut microbiome composition in multiple sclerosis,” Multiple Sclerosis Journal, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 628–636, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. X. Zhang, D. Y. Zhang, H. J. Jia et al., “The oral and gut microbiomes are perturbed in rheumatoid arthritis and partly normalized after treatment,” Nature Medicine, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 895–905, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. A. Parashar and M. Udayabanu, “Gut microbiota: implications in Parkinson’s disease,” Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, vol. 38, pp. 1–7, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. S. Westfall, N. Lomis, I. Kahouli, S. Y. Dia, S. P. Singh, and S. Prakash, “Microbiome, probiotics and neurodegenerative diseases: deciphering the gut brain axis,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 74, no. 20, pp. 3769–3787, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. L. Galland, “The gut microbiome and the brain,” Journal of Medicinal Food, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 1261–1272, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. A. Swidsinski, V. Loening-Baucke, H. Lochs, and L. P. Hale, “Spatial organization of bacterial flora in normal and inflamed intestine: a fluorescence in situ hybridization study in mice,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 1131–1140, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. S. Shahi, S. Freedman, and A. Mangalam, “Gut microbiome in multiple sclerosis: the players involved and the roles they play,” Gut Microbes, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 607–615, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. A. Picca, F. Fanelli, R. Calvani et al., “Gut dysbiosis and muscle aging: searching for novel targets against sarcopenia,” Mediators of Inflammation, vol. 2018, Article ID 7026198, 15 pages, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. D. W. Mielcarz and L. H. Kasper, “The gut microbiome in multiple sclerosis,” Current Treatment Options in Neurology, vol. 17, no. 4, p. 18, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. J. Li, H. Jia, X. Cai et al., “An integrated catalog of reference genes in the human gut microbiome,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 834–841, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. P. Hugon, J. C. Dufour, P. Colson, P. E. Fournier, K. Sallah, and D. Raoult, “A comprehensive repertoire of prokaryotic species identified in human beings,” The Lancet Infectious Diseases, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 1211–1219, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. E. M. Mowry and J. D. Glenn, “The dynamics of the gut microbiome in multiple sclerosis in relation to disease,” Neurologic Clinics, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 185–196, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. H. E. Blum, “The human microbiome,” Advances in Medical Sciences, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 414–420, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. J. Penders, C. Thijs, C. Vink et al., “Factors influencing the composition of the intestinal microbiota in early infancy,” Pediatrics, vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 511–521, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. S. Ghaisas, J. Maher, and A. Kanthasamy, “Gut microbiome in health and disease: linking the microbiome–gut–brain axis and environmental factors in the pathogenesis of systemic and neurodegenerative diseases,” Pharmacology & Therapeutics, vol. 158, pp. 52–62, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. F. Backhed, J. Roswall, Y. Peng et al., “Dynamics and stabilization of the human gut microbiome during the first year of life,” Cell Host & Microbe, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 690–703, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. T. Yatsunenko, F. E. Rey, M. J. Manary et al., “Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography,” Nature, vol. 486, pp. 222–227, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. M. G. Dominguez-Bello, E. K. Costello, M. Contreras et al., “Delivery mode shapes the acquisition and structure of the initial microbiota across multiple body habitats in newborns,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 26, pp. 11971–11975, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. P. Bager, J. Wohlfahrt, and T. Westergaard, “Caesarean delivery and risk of atopy and allergic disesase: meta-analyses,” Clinical & Experimental Allergy, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 634–642, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. J. E. Koenig, A. Spor, N. Scalfone et al., “Succession of microbial consortia in the developing infant gut microbiome,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 108, Supplement 1, pp. 4578–4585, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. J. M. Rodriguez, K. Murphy, C. Stanton et al., “The composition of the gut microbiota throughout life, with an emphasis on early life,” Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease, vol. 26, article 26050, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. M. Simren, G. Barbara, H. J. Flint et al., “Intestinal microbiota in functional bowel disorders: a Rome foundation report,” Gut, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 159–176, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. J. Dicksved, J. Halfvarson, M. Rosenquist et al., “Molecular analysis of the gut microbiota of identical twins with Crohn’s disease,” The ISME Journal, vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 716–727, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. P. J. Turnbaugh, M. Hamady, T. Yatsunenko et al., “A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins,” Nature, vol. 457, no. 7228, pp. 480–484, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. G. Erwin and A. D. L. A. Zoetendal, “The host genotype affects the bacterial community in the human gastronintestinal tract,” Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 129–134, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. S. Mueller, K. Saunier, C. Hanisch et al., “Differences in fecal microbiota in different European study populations in relation to age, gender, and country: a cross-sectional study,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 1027–1033, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. E. Jašarević, K. E. Morrison, and T. L. Bale, “Sex differences in the gut microbiome–brain axis across the lifespan,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 371, no. 1688, article 20150122, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. A. Gomez, D. Luckey, and V. Taneja, “The gut microbiome in autoimmunity: sex matters,” Clinical Immunology, vol. 159, no. 2, pp. 154–162, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. J. G. Markle, D. N. Frank, S. Mortin-Toth et al., “Sex differences in the gut microbiome drive hormone-dependent regulation of autoimmunity,” Science, vol. 339, no. 6123, pp. 1084–1088, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. L. Yurkovetskiy, M. Burrows, A. A. Khan et al., “Gender bias in autoimmunity is influenced by microbiota,” Immunity, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 400–412, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. L. A. David, C. F. Maurice, R. N. Carmody et al., “Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome,” Nature, vol. 505, no. 7484, pp. 559–563, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. J. Zimmer, B. Lange, J. S. Frick et al., “A vegan or vegetarian diet substantially alters the human colonic faecal microbiota,” European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 53–60, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. S. E. Power, P. W. O'Toole, C. Stanton, R. P. Ross, and G. F. Fitzgerald, “Intestinal microbiota, diet and health,” British Journal of Nutrition, vol. 111, no. 03, pp. 387–402, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. C. De Filippo, D. Cavalieri, M. Di Paola et al., “Impact of diet in shaping gut microbiota revealed by a comparative study in children from Europe and rural Africa,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 33, pp. 14691–14696, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. A. Scott, S. T. Sands, T. M. Yankee, B. L. Parker, A. C. Ericsson, and S. M. LeVine, “The effect of omeprazole on the development of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis in c57bl/6j and sjl/j mice,” BMC Research Notes, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 605, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. J. Ochoa-Reparaz, D. W. Mielcarz, L. E. Ditrio et al., “Role of gut commensal microflora in the development of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 183, no. 10, pp. 6041–6050, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. L. Biedermann and G. Rogler, “The intestinal microbiota: its role in health and disease,” European Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 174, no. 2, pp. 151–167, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. S. N. M. E. Rezasoltani, M. Norouzinia, and A. H. Asadzadeh, “The necessity of gut microbiome characterization in diseases prevention and therapy,” Gastroenterology and Hepatology From Bed to Bench, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 150-151, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  45. J. LeBlanc, C. Milani, G. de Giori, F. Sesma, D. van Sinderen, and M. Ventura, “Bacteria as vitamin suppliers to their host: a gut microbiota perspective,” Current Opinion in Biotechnology, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 160–168, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. A. A. Abou-Zeid, Y. M. Shehata, and R. el-Sherbeny, “Microbial production of cobalamin (Vitamin B12),” Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie, Parasitenkunde, Infektionskrankheiten und Hygiene. Zweite Naturwissenschaftliche Abteilung: Allgemeine, Landwirtschaftliche und Technische Mikrobiologie, vol. 128, no. 3-4, pp. 285–296, 1973. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. A. Pompei, L. Cordisco, A. Amaretti, S. Zanoni, D. Matteuzzi, and M. Rossi, “Folate production by bifidobacteria as a potential probiotic property,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 179–185, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. M. J. Hill, “Intestinal flora and endogenous vitamin synthesis,” European Journal of Cancer Prevention, vol. 6, Supplement 1, pp. S43–S45, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. R. Correa-Oliveira, J. L. Fachi, A. Vieira, F. T. Sato, and M. A. Vinolo, “Regulation of immune cell function by short-chain fatty acids,” Clinical & Translational Immunology, vol. 5, no. 4, article e73, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. M. D. Gershon, “The enteric nervous system: a second brain,” Hospital Practice, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 31–52, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. M. B. Hansen, “The enteric nervous system I: organisation and classification,” Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 105–113, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. R. K. Goyal and I. Hirano, “The enteric nervous system,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 334, no. 17, pp. 1106–1115, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. J. M. Yano, K. Yu, G. P. Donaldson et al., “Indigenous bacteria from the gut microbiota regulate host serotonin biosynthesis,” Cell, vol. 161, no. 2, pp. 264–276, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. J. D. Crane, R. Palanivel, E. P. Mottillo et al., “Inhibiting peripheral serotonin synthesis reduces obesity and metabolic dysfunction by promoting brown adipose tissue thermogenesis,” Nature Medicine, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 166–172, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. E. A. Mayer, K. Tillisch, and A. Gupta, “Gut/brain axis and the microbiota,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 125, no. 3, pp. 926–938, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. L. I. Weinstein, A. Revuelta, and R. H. Pando, “Catecholamines and acetylcholine are key regulators of the interaction between microbes and the immune system,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1351, no. 1, pp. 39–51, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. E. Barrett, R. P. Ross, P. W. O'Toole, G. F. Fitzgerald, and C. Stanton, “γ-Aminobutyric acid production by culturable bacteria from the human intestine,” Journal of Applied Microbiology, vol. 113, no. 2, pp. 411–417, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. M. Lyte, “Microbial endocrinology in the microbiome-gut-brain axis: how bacterial production and utilization of neurochemicals influence behavior,” PLoS Pathogens, vol. 9, no. 11, article e1003726, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. A. J. Park, J. Collins, P. A. Blennerhassett et al., “Altered colonic function and microbiota profile in a mouse model of chronic depression,” Neurogastroenterology & Motility, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 733–e575, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. A. Ait-Belgnaoui, H. Durand, C. Cartier et al., “Prevention of gut leakiness by a probiotic treatment leads to attenuated HPA response to an acute psychological stress in rats,” Psychoneuroendocrinology, vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 1885–1895, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. M. A. Bellavance and S. Rivest, “The HPA – immune axis and the immunomodulatory actions of glucocorticoids in the brain,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 5, p. 136, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. M. T. Bailey, S. E. Dowd, J. D. Galley, A. R. Hufnagle, R. G. Allen, and M. Lyte, “Exposure to a social stressor alters the structure of the intestinal microbiota: implications for stressor-induced immunomodulation,” Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 397–407, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. C. Hueston and T. Deak, “The inflamed axis: the interaction between stress, hormones, and the expression of inflammatory-related genes within key structures comprising the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis,” Physiology & Behavior, vol. 124, pp. 77–91, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. M. N. Silverman and E. M. Sternberg, “Glucocorticoid regulation of inflammation and its functional correlates: from HPA axis to glucocorticoid receptor dysfunction,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1261, no. 1, pp. 55–63, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. S. Macfarlane and G. T. Macfarlane, “Regulation of short-chain fatty acid production,” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, vol. 62, no. 01, pp. 67–72, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. P. Louis and H. J. Flint, “Formation of propionate and butyrate by the human colonic microbiota,” Environmental Microbiology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 29–41, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. N. de Clercq, M. N. Frissen, A. K. Groen, and M. Nieuwdorp, “Gut microbiota and the gut-brain axis: new insights in the pathophysiology of metabolic syndrome,” Psychosomatic Medicine, vol. 79, no. 8, pp. 874–879, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. M. Waldecker, T. Kautenburger, H. Daumann, C. Busch, and D. Schrenk, “Inhibition of histone-deacetylase activity by short-chain fatty acids and some polyphenol metabolites formed in the colon,” The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 587–593, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. N. Arpaia, C. Campbell, X. Fan et al., “Metabolites produced by commensal bacteria promote peripheral regulatory T-cell generation,” Nature, vol. 504, no. 7480, pp. 451–455, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. V. Braniste, M. Al-Asmakh, C. Kowal et al., “The gut microbiota influences blood-brain barrier permeability in mice,” Science Translational Medicine, vol. 6, no. 263, article 263ra158, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. D. Erny, A. L. Hrabe de Angelis, D. Jaitin et al., “Host microbiota constantly control maturation and function of microglia in the cns,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 965–977, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. K. M. Maslowski, A. T. Vieira, A. Ng et al., “Regulation of inflammatory responses by gut microbiota and chemoattractant receptor gpr43,” Nature, vol. 461, no. 7268, pp. 1282–1286, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. A. Kadowaki, S. Miyake, R. Saga, A. Chiba, H. Mochizuki, and T. Yamamura, “Gut environment-induced intraepithelial autoreactive CD4+ T cells suppress central nervous system autoimmunity via LAG-3,” Nature Communications, vol. 7, article 11639, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. M. C. Cénit, V. Matzaraki, E. F. Tigchelaar, and A. Zhernakova, “Rapidly expanding knowledge on the role of the gut microbiome in health and disease,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) – Molecular Basis of Disease, vol. 1842, no. 10, pp. 1981–1992, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. The ENCODE Project Consortium, E. Birney, J. A. Stamatoyannopoulos et al., “Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the encode pilot project,” Nature, vol. 447, no. 7146, pp. 799–816, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. J. F. Petrosino, S. Highlander, R. A. Luna, R. A. Gibbs, and J. Versalovic, “Metagenomic pyrosequencing and microbial identification,” Clinical Chemistry, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 856–866, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. K. Chen and L. Pachter, “Bioinformatics for whole-genome shotgun sequencing of microbial communities,” PLoS Computational Biology, vol. 1, no. 2, article e24, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. J. Ochoa-Repáraz and L. H. Kasper, “Gut microbiome and the risk factors in central nervous system autoimmunity,” FEBS Letters, vol. 588, no. 22, pp. 4214–4222, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. Y. Wang and L. H. Kasper, “The role of microbiome in central nervous system disorders,” Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, vol. 38, pp. 1–12, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. K. M. Telesford, W. Yan, J. Ochoa-Reparaz et al., “A commensal symbiotic factor derived from Bacteroides fragilis promotes human CD39+ Foxp3+ T cells and Treg function,” Gut Microbes, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 234–242, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. R. B. Clark, J. L. Cervantes, M. W. Maciejewski et al., “Serine lipids of porphyromonas gingivalis are human and mouse toll-like receptor 2 ligands,” Infection and Immunity, vol. 81, no. 9, pp. 3479–3489, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. P. Dilokthornsakul, R. J. Valuck, K. V. Nair, J. R. Corboy, R. R. Allen, and J. D. Campbell, “Multiple sclerosis prevalence in the United States commercially insured population,” Neurology, vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 1014–1021, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. E. Kingwell, J. J. Marriott, N. Jette et al., “Incidence and prevalence of multiple sclerosis in Europe: a systematic review,” BMC Neurology, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 128, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. C. A. Dendrou, L. Fugger, and M. A. Friese, “Immunopathology of multiple sclerosis,” Nature Reviews Immunology, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 545–558, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. C. Gu, “Kir4.1: K+ channel illusion or reality in the autoimmune pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis,” Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience, vol. 9, p. 90, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  86. J. M. Fletcher, S. J. Lalor, C. M. Sweeney, N. Tubridy, and K. H. Mills, “T cells in multiple sclerosis and experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis,” Clinical & Experimental Immunology, vol. 162, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. X. Fan, C. Lin, J. Han, X. Jiang, J. Zhu, and T. Jin, “Follicular helper CD4+ T cells in human neuroautoimmune diseases and their animal models,” Mediators of Inflammation, vol. 2015, Article ID 638968, 11 pages, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. P. K. Stys, G. W. Zamponi, J. van Minnen, and J. J. Geurts, “Will the real multiple sclerosis please stand up?” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 507–514, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. T. Kuhlmann, S. Ludwin, A. Prat, J. Antel, W. Bruck, and H. Lassmann, “An updated histological classification system for multiple sclerosis lesions,” Acta Neuropathologica, vol. 133, no. 1, pp. 13–24, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. M. Rangachari, S. M. Kerfoot, N. Arbour, and J. I. Alvarez, “Editorial: Lymphocytes in MS and EAE: more than just a CD4+ world,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 8, p. 133, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. A. V. Chervonsky, “Influence of microbial environment on autoimmunity,” Nature Immunology, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 28–35, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. V. Rothhammer and F. J. Quintana, “Environmental control of autoimmune inflammation in the central nervous system,” Current Opinion in Immunology, vol. 43, pp. 46–53, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. V. V. Bashinskaya, O. G. Kulakova, A. N. Boyko, A. V. Favorov, and O. O. Favorova, “A review of genome-wide association studies for multiple sclerosis: classical and hypothesis-driven approaches,” Human Genetics, vol. 134, no. 11-12, pp. 1143–1162, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. A. Compston and A. Coles, “Multiple sclerosis,” The Lancet, vol. 372, no. 9648, pp. 1502–1517, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  95. C. Tao, S. Simpson, I. van der Mei et al., “Higher latitude is significantly associated with an earlier age of disease onset in multiple sclerosis,” Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, vol. 87, no. 12, pp. 1343–1349, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. W. H. Brooks, C. Le Dantec, J. O. Pers, P. Youinou, and Y. Renaudineau, “Epigenetics and autoimmunity,” Journal of Autoimmunity, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. J207–J219, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. I. Selmaj, M. P. Mycko, C. S. Raine, and K. W. Selmaj, “The role of exosomes in cns inflammation and their involvement in multiple sclerosis,” Journal of Neuroimmunology, vol. 306, pp. 1–10, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. C. I. Kucukali, M. Kurtuncu, A. Coban, M. Cebi, and E. Tuzun, “Epigenetics of multiple sclerosis: an updated review,” NeuroMolecular Medicine, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 83–96, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. S. Simpson Jr., B. V. Taylor, and I. van der Mei, “The role of epidemiology in ms research: past successes, current challenges and future potential,” Multiple Sclerosis Journal, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 969–977, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. A.-K. Fleck, D. Schuppan, H. Wiendl, and L. Klotz, “Gut–cns-axis as possibility to modulate inflammatory disease activity—implications for multiple sclerosis,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 18, no. 12, article 1526, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  101. J. N. Brenton and M. D. Goldman, “A study of dietary modification: perceptions and attitudes of patients with multiple sclerosis,” Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, vol. 8, pp. 54–57, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. J. J. L. H. Kasper, “Digesting the emerging role for the gut microbiome in central nervous system demyelination,” Multiple Sclerosis Journal, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 1553–1559, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  103. N. P. Ly, A. Litonjua, D. R. Gold, and J. C. Celedon, “Gut microbiota, probiotics, and vitamin d: interrelated exposures influencing allergy, asthma, and obesity?” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 127, no. 5, pp. 1087–1094, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. L. Biedermann, J. Zeitz, J. Mwinyi et al., “Smoking cessation induces profound changes in the composition of the intestinal microbiota in humans,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 3, article e59260, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  105. V. Rothhammer, I. D. Mascanfroni, L. Bunse et al., “Type I interferons and microbial metabolites of tryptophan modulate astrocyte activity and central nervous system inflammation via the aryl hydrocarbon receptor,” Nature Medicine, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 586–597, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. A. E. Hoban, R. M. Stilling, F. J. Ryan et al., “Regulation of prefrontal cortex myelination by the microbiota,” Translational Psychiatry, vol. 6, no. 4, article e774, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  107. L. V. Hooper, D. R. Littman, and A. J. Macpherson, “Interactions between the microbiota and the immune system,” Science, vol. 336, no. 6086, pp. 1268–1273, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  108. Y. K. Lee, J. S. Menezes, Y. Umesaki, and S. K. Mazmanian, “Proinflammatory T-cell responses to gut microbiota promote experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 108, Supplement 1, pp. 4615–4622, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  109. K. Berer, M. Mues, M. Koutrolos et al., “Commensal microbiota and myelin autoantigen cooperate to trigger autoimmune demyelination,” Nature, vol. 479, no. 7374, pp. 538–541, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  110. H. Yokote, S. Miyake, J. L. Croxford, S. Oki, H. Mizusawa, and T. Yamamura, “Nkt cell-dependent amelioration of a mouse model of multiple sclerosis by altering gut flora,” The American Journal of Pathology, vol. 173, no. 6, pp. 1714–1723, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  111. S. Lavasani, B. Dzhambazov, M. Nouri et al., “A novel probiotic mixture exerts a therapeutic effect on experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis mediated by il-10 producing regulatory t cells,” PLoS One, vol. 5, no. 2, article e9009, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  112. J. Ochoa-Reparaz, A. Rynda, M. A. Ascon et al., “IL-13 production by regulatory T cells protects against experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis independently of autoantigen,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 181, no. 2, pp. 954–968, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  113. J. Ezendam, A. de Klerk, E. R. Gremmer, and H. van Loveren, “Effects of Bifidobacterium animalis administered during lactation on allergic and autoimmune responses in rodents,” Clinical & Experimental Immunology, vol. 154, no. 3, pp. 424–431, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  114. J. Ochoa-Reparaz, D. W. Mielcarz, L. E. Ditrio et al., “Central nervous system demyelinating disease protection by the human commensal Bacteroides fragilis depends on polysaccharide a expression,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 185, no. 7, pp. 4101–4108, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  115. J. Ochoa-Reparaz, C. Riccardi, A. Rynda, S. Jun, G. Callis, and D. W. Pascual, “Regulatory T cell vaccination without autoantigen protects against experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 178, no. 3, pp. 1791–1799, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  116. S. B.-H. Yan Wang, M. Kiel, J. Telesford et al., “A commensal bacterial product elicits and modulates migratory capacity of CD39+ CD4 T regulatory subsets in the suppression of neuroinflammation,” Gut Microbes, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 552–561, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  117. J. L. Round and S. K. Mazmanian, “Inducible Foxp3+ regulatory T-cell development by a commensal bacterium of the intestinal microbiota,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 27, pp. 12204–12209, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  118. K. Takata, M. Kinoshita, T. Okuno et al., “The lactic acid bacterium Pediococcus acidilactici suppresses autoimmune encephalomyelitis by inducing IL-10-producing regulatory T cells,” PLoS One, vol. 6, no. 11, article e27644, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  119. C. B. Maassen and E. Claassen, “Strain-dependent effects of probiotic lactobacilli on EAE autoimmunity,” Vaccine, vol. 26, no. 17, pp. 2056-2057, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  120. A. Mangalam, S. K. Shahi, D. Luckey et al., “Human gut-derived commensal bacteria suppress CNS inflammatory and demyelinating disease,” Cell Reports, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1269–1277, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  121. K. N. Chitrala, H. Guan, N. P. Singh et al., “Cd44 deletion leading to attenuation of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis results from alterations in gut microbiome in mice,” European Journal of Immunology, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 1188–1199, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  122. S. Jun, J. Ochoa-Reparaz, D. Zlotkowska, T. Hoyt, and D. W. Pascual, “Bystander-mediated stimulation of proteolipid protein-specific regulatory T (Treg) cells confers protection against experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) via TGF-β,” Journal of Neuroimmunology, vol. 245, no. 1-2, pp. 39–47, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  123. S. Jun, W. Gilmore, G. Callis, A. Rynda, A. Haddad, and D. W. Pascual, “A live diarrheal vaccine imprints a Th2 cell bias and acts as an anti-inflammatory vaccine,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 175, no. 10, pp. 6733–6740, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  124. K. Atarashi, T. Tanoue, T. Shima et al., “Induction of colonic regulatory T cells by indigenous clostridium species,” Science, vol. 331, no. 6015, pp. 337–341, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  125. K. Atarashi, T. Tanoue, K. Oshima et al., “Treg induction by a rationally selected mixture of clostridia strains from the human microbiota,” Nature, vol. 500, no. 7461, pp. 232–236, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  126. E. Cekanaviciute, B. B. Yoo, T. F. Runia et al., “Gut bacteria from multiple sclerosis patients modulate human T cells and exacerbate symptoms in mouse models,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 114, no. 40, pp. 10713–10718, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  127. K. Berer, L. A. Gerdes, E. Cekanaviciute et al., “Gut microbiota from multiple sclerosis patients enables spontaneous autoimmune encephalomyelitis in mice,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 114, no. 40, pp. 10719–10724, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  128. S. Jangi, R. Gandhi, L. M. Cox et al., “Alterations of the human gut microbiome in multiple sclerosis,” Nature Communications, vol. 7, article 12015, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  129. M. Derrien, P. Van Baarlen, G. Hooiveld, E. Norin, M. Muller, and W. M. de Vos, “Modulation of mucosal immune response, tolerance, and proliferation in mice colonized by the mucin-degrader akkermansia muciniphila,” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 2, p. 166, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  130. B. P. Ganesh, R. Klopfleisch, G. Loh, and M. Blaut, “Commensal Akkermansia muciniphila exacerbates gut inflammation in Salmonella Typhimurium-infected gnotobiotic mice,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 9, article e74963, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  131. Y. Furusawa, Y. Obata, S. Fukuda et al., “Commensal microbe-derived butyrate induces the differentiation of colonic regulatory T cells,” Nature, vol. 504, no. 7480, pp. 446–450, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  132. H. Tremlett, D. W. Fadrosh, A. A. Faruqi et al., “Gut microbiota in early pediatric multiple sclerosis: a case-control study,” European Journal of Neurology, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 1308–1321, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  133. H. Tremlett, D. W. Fadrosh, A. A. Faruqi et al., “Gut microbiota composition and relapse risk in pediatric MS: a pilot study,” Journal of the Neurological Sciences, vol. 363, pp. 153–157, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  134. H. Tremlett, D. W. Fadrosh, A. A. Faruqi et al., “Associations between the gut microbiota and host immune markers in pediatric multiple sclerosis and controls,” BMC Neurology, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 182, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  135. G. L. Hold, S. E. Pryde, V. J. Russell, E. Furrie, and H. J. Flint, “Assessment of microbial diversity in human colonic samples by 16s rDNA sequence analysis,” FEMS Microbiology Ecology, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 33–39, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  136. J. M. Manson, M. Rauch, and M. S. Gilmore, “The commensal microbiology of the gastrointestinal tract,” in GI Microbiota and Regulation of the Immune System, G. B. Huffnagle and M. C. Noverr, Eds., vol. 635 of Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, pp. 15–28, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  137. B. A. Wilson, S. Miyake, S. Kim et al., “Dysbiosis in the gut microbiota of patients with multiple sclerosis, with a striking depletion of species belonging to clostridia Xiva and IV clusters,” PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 9, article e0137429, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  138. B. L. Cantarel, E. Waubant, C. Chehoud et al., “Gut microbiota in multiple sclerosis,” Journal of Investigative Medicine, vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 729–734, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  139. K. R. Rumah, J. Linden, V. A. Fischetti, and T. Vartanian, “Isolation of Clostridium perfringens type b in an individual at first clinical presentation of multiple sclerosis provides clues for environmental triggers of the disease,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 10, article e76359, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  140. J. Chen, N. Chia, K. R. Kalari et al., “Multiple sclerosis patients have a distinct gut microbiota compared to healthy controls,” Scientific Reports, vol. 6, no. 1, article 28484, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  141. E. H. Crost, L. E. Tailford, G. Le Gall, M. Fons, B. Henrissat, and N. Juge, “Utilisation of mucin glycans by the human gut symbiont Ruminococcus gnavus is strain-dependent,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 10, article e76341, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  142. M. Schirmer, S. P. Smeekens, H. Vlamakis et al., “Linking the human gut microbiome to inflammatory cytokine production capacity,” Cell, vol. 167, no. 4, pp. 1125–1136.e8, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  143. W. G. Branton, J. Q. Lu, M. G. Surette et al., “Brain microbiota disruption within inflammatory demyelinating lesions in multiple sclerosis,” Scientific Reports, vol. 6, no. 1, article 37344, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  144. M. Kleinewietfeld, A. Manzel, J. Titze et al., “Sodium chloride drives autoimmune disease by the induction of pathogenic TH17 cells,” Nature, vol. 496, no. 7446, pp. 518–522, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  145. V. Farrokhi, R. Nemati, F. C. Nichols et al., “Bacterial lipodipeptide, lipid 654, is a microbiome-associated biomarker for multiple sclerosis,” Clinical & Translational Immunology, vol. 2, no. 11, article e8, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  146. Q. Yang, C. Zheng, J. Cao et al., “Spermidine alleviates experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis through inducing inhibitory macrophages,” Cell Death & Differentiation, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 1850–1861, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  147. L. Piccio, J. L. Stark, and A. H. Cross, “Chronic calorie restriction attenuates experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis,” Journal of Leukocyte Biology, vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 940–948, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  148. D. Tripathy, P. Mohanty, S. Dhindsa et al., “Elevation of free fatty acids induces inflammation and impairs vascular reactivity in healthy subjects,” Diabetes, vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 2882–2887, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  149. H. K. Kwon, G. C. Kim, Y. Kim et al., “Amelioration of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis by probiotic mixture is mediated by a shift in t helper cell immune response,” Clinical Immunology, vol. 146, no. 3, pp. 217–227, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  150. G. L. V. de Oliveira, A. Z. Leite, B. S. Higuchi, M. I. Gonzaga, and V. S. Mariano, “Intestinal dysbiosis and probiotic applications in autoimmune diseases,” Immunology, vol. 152, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  151. S. Jorg, J. Kissel, A. Manzel et al., “High salt drives Th17 responses in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis without impacting myeloid dendritic cells,” Experimental Neurology, vol. 279, pp. 212–222, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  152. S. Hucke, M. Eschborn, M. Liebmann et al., “Sodium chloride promotes pro-inflammatory macrophage polarization thereby aggravating cns autoimmunity,” Journal of Autoimmunity, vol. 67, pp. 90–101, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  153. A. Haghikia, S. Jorg, A. Duscha et al., “Dietary fatty acids directly impact central nervous system autoimmunity via the small intestine,” Immunity, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 951–953, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  154. M. Farez, M. Fiol, M. Gaitán, F. Quintana, and J. Correale, “Sodium intake is associated with increased disease activity in multiple sclerosis,” Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 26–31, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  155. C. Mattozzi, G. Paolino, M. Salvi et al., “Peripheral blood regulatory T cell measurements correlate with serum vitamin D level in patients with psoriasis,” European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 1675–1679, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  156. S. W. Kang, S. H. Kim, N. Lee et al., “1,25-dihyroxyvitamin D3 promotes foxp3 expression via binding to vitamin d response elements in its conserved noncoding sequence region,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 188, no. 11, pp. 5276–5282, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  157. J. Ochoa-Reparaz, D. W. Mielcarz, S. Haque-Begum, and L. H. Kasper, “Induction of a regulatory b cell population in experimental allergic encephalomyelitis by alteration of the gut commensal microflora,” Gut Microbes, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 103–108, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  158. S. L. K. E. Colpitts, “A bidirectional association between the gut microbiota and CNS disease in a biphasic murine model of multiple sclerosis,” Gut Microbes, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 561–573, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  159. W. J. van den Hoogen, J. D. Laman, and B. A. ‘t Hart, “Modulation of multiple sclerosis and its animal model experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis by food and gut microbiota,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 8, article 1081, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  160. L. Dethlefsen and D. A. Relman, “Incomplete recovery and individualized responses of the human distal gut microbiota to repeated antibiotic perturbation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 108, Supplement 1, pp. 4554–4561, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  161. K. R. Rumah, T. K. Vartanian, and V. A. Fischetti, “Oral multiple sclerosis drugs inhibit the in vitro growth of epsilon toxin producing gut bacterium, Clostridium perfringens,” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, vol. 7, p. 11, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  162. P. Bron, M. Kleerebezem, R. Brummer et al., “Can probiotics modulate human disease by impacting intestinal barrier function?” British Journal of Nutrition, vol. 117, no. 01, pp. 93–107, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  163. M. G. Gareau, P. M. Sherman, and W. A. Walker, “Probiotics and the gut microbiota in intestinal health and disease,” Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 503–514, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  164. H. Wang, I. S. Lee, C. Braun, and P. Enck, “Effect of probiotics on central nervous system functions in animals and humans: a systematic review,” Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 589–605, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  165. J. Ochoa-Reparaz, D. W. Mielcarz, Y. Wang et al., “A polysaccharide from the human commensal Bacteroides fragilis protects against CNS demyelinating disease,” Mucosal Immunology, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 487–495, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  166. J. Ezendam and H. van Loveren, “Lactobacillus casei shirota administered during lactation increases the duration of autoimmunity in rats and enhances lung inflammation in mice,” The British Journal of Nutrition, vol. 99, no. 01, pp. 83–90, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  167. K. Takata, T. Tomita, T. Okuno et al., “Dietary yeasts reduce inflammation in central nerve system via microflora,” Annals of Clinical Translational Neurology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 56–66, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  168. L. Shapira, S. Ayalon, and T. Brenner, “Effects of Porphyromonas gingivalis on the central nervous system: activation of glial cells and exacerbation of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis,” Journal of Periodontology, vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 511–516, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  169. F. C. Nichols, W. J. Housley, C. A. O'Conor, T. Manning, S. Wu, and R. B. Clark, “Unique lipids from a common human bacterium represent a new class of toll-like receptor 2 ligands capable of enhancing autoimmunity,” The American Journal of Pathology, vol. 175, no. 6, pp. 2430–2438, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  170. R. M. Rezende, R. P. Oliveira, S. R. Medeiros et al., “Hsp65-producing lactococcus lactis prevents experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis in mice by inducing CD4+LAP+ regulatory t cells,” Journal of Autoimmunity, vol. 40, pp. 45–57, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  171. M. Q. Xu, H. L. Cao, W. Q. Wang et al., “Fecal microbiota transplantation broadening Its application beyond intestinal disorders,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 102–111, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  172. M. Kasubuchi, S. Hasegawa, T. Hiramatsu, A. Ichimura, and I. Kimura, “Dietary gut microbial metabolites, short-chain fatty acids, and host metabolic regulation,” Nutrients, vol. 7, pp. 2839–2849, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  173. M. Adamczyk-Sowa, A. Medrek, P. Madej, W. Michlicka, and P. Dobrakowski, “Does the gut microbiota influence immunity and inflammation in multiple sclerosis pathophysiology?” Journal of Immunology Research, vol. 2017, Article ID 7904821, 14 pages, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  174. H. H. Choi and Y. S. Cho, “Fecal microbiota transplantation: current applications, effectiveness, and future perspectives,” Clinical endoscopy, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 257–265, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  175. T. Borody, S. Leis, J. Campbell, and M. Torres, “Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in multiple sclerosis (MS),” The American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. s352, p. 106, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  176. C. Terrazas, J. de Dios Ruiz-Rosado, S. A. Amici et al., “Helminth-induced ly6chi monocyte-derived alternatively activated macrophages suppress experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, article 40814, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  177. J. Correale and M. Farez, “Association between parasite infection and immune responses in multiple sclerosis,” Annals of Neurology, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 97–108, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  178. J. Correale and M. F. Farez, “The impact of parasite infections on the course of multiple sclerosis,” Journal of Neuroimmunology, vol. 233, no. 1-2, pp. 6–11, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  179. R. A. Liddle, “Parkinson’s disease from the gut,” Brain Research, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  180. G. Winter and R. A. Hart, “Gut microbiome and depression: what we know and what we need to know,” Reviews in the Neurosciences, no. 0, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  181. A. Lionnet, L. Leclair-Visonneau, M. Neunlist et al., “Does Parkinson’s disease start in the gut?” Acta Neuropathologica, vol. 135, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  182. J. Ochoa-Reparaz, T. O. Kirby, and L. H. Kasper, “The gut microbiome and multiple sclerosis,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  183. S. N. Freedman, S. K. Shahi, and A. K. Mangalam, “The “gut feeling”: breaking down the role of gut microbiome in multiple sclerosis,” Neurotherapeutics, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 109–125, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  184. Y. Wang, K. M. Telesford, J. Ochoa-Reparaz et al., “An intestinal commensal symbiosis factor controls neuroinflammation via tlr2-mediated cd39 signalling,” Nature Communications, vol. 5, article 4432, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2018 Fengna Chu et al. 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.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views7751
Downloads1810
Citations

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.