Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Perspective
Intestinal barrier function-NAFLD interactions
and possible role of gut microbiota
yizhe cui, qiuju wang, renxu Chang, xiaocui zhou, and chuang xu
J. Agric. Food Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.9b00080 • Publication Date (Web): 25 Feb 2019
Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on February 26, 2019
Just Accepted
“Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted
online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical
Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination
of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in
full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully
peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the
Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore,
the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After
a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web
site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes
to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and
ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or
consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
2 Yizhe Cui,† Qiuju Wang,† Renxu Chang,† Xiaocui Zhou,‡ and Chuang Xu†*
3 †College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Heilongjiang Bayi Agricultural University, No.
5 ‡China Animal Health and Epidemiology Center, Laboratory of Zoonosis, Qingdao, China 266000.
7 Corresponding author:Chuang Xu
8 College of Animal Science and Veterinary, Heilongjiang Bayi Agricultural University, Daqing,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 ABSTRACT
24 Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a metabolic stress liver injury that is closely related to
25 obesity, insulin resistance (IR), type 2 diabetes, atherosclerosis and metabolic syndrome. The
26 pathological features are diffuse hepatic vesicular steatosis, including nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, liver
27 fibrosis, and even liver cancer. A variety of pathological outcomes cause serious harm to human health.
28 At present, an increasing number of researchers are investigating the pathogenesis of NAFLD from the
29 perspective of changes in the function of the intestinal barrier. The physical, chemical, immunological
30 and microbiological barriers in the intestinal tract constitute the complete intestinal barrier, which plays
31 an important defensive role against the invasion of harmful substances from the intestines. Protecting
32 the function of the intestinal barrier is a new way to treat NAFLD and its related diseases. In this
33 review, we summarized the current knowledge of the role of the intestinal barrier in NAFLD.
34 Key words: barrier function, intestinal microflora, gut-liver axis, oxidative stress, NAFLD
35 Introduction
36 The pathogenesis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is not yet fully understood; currently,
37 researchers are investigating the “two-hit” hypothesis.1 The “first hit” , which leads to the formation of
38 NAFLD, refers to an increase in the level of free fatty acid (FFA) in the adipocytes and a decrease in
39 the oxidation of FFAs in the liver, resulting in the excessive accumulation of fat in the liver cells. The
40 “second hit” refers to the release of inflammatory cytokines and the increase in the level of oxidative
41 stress in NAFLD and the consequent persistent damage to the liver. However, many other factors,
42 including the complex interplay of genetic, environmental, dietary and metabolic influences and the
43 intestinal microbiome, can generate the nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) phenotype, and NASH
44 may not always be preceded by NAFLD. In addition, because of the complex role of gut microflora in
45 maintaining human health and disease formation, NAFLD is considered to be a typical intestinal
46 microflora-related disease. The theory of the gut-liver axis suggests that there is a relationship between
47 liver diseases and the intestinal tract.2 Changes in the function of the intestinal barrier are closely
48 related to the “second hit” and are involved in the development of NAFLD. The intestinal barrier is a
49 complex structure composed of the following four main barriers: microbiological, chemical, physical
50 and immunological. These barriers play important roles in maintaining the stability of the internal and
51 external environments (Fig 1). In the pathological conditions of hypoxia, inflammatory stimulation, and
52 bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine, the permeability of the intestinal mucosal barrier increases,
53 and intestinal bacteria and their products enter the circulation through the damaged intestinal mucosal
54 barrier and move to the liver. In many studies, alterations in the gut microbiota were reflected in
55 metabolic disorders, which involved a variety of metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes (T2D),3
56 obesity,4 cardiovascular disease,5 and NAFLD.6 Based on these findings, a new treatment direction
57 involving the intestinal barrier was proposed. In this review, we described our current understanding of
58 the function of the intestinal barrier and the potential role of intestinal microbiota in NAFLD. In
59 addition, we briefly summarized the status of novel microbiota therapy in clinical and experimental
60 research.
62 The intestinal microbial barrier is composed of the healthy intestinal flora. Because of a
63 complementary role between the gut microbiota and the liver in many ways, that is even called
64 “metabolic organ”.7 There are 100 times more genes in the intestinal flora found in the human body
65 than in the human genome. Under normal conditions, the intestinal microflora is in balance with the
66 internal and external environments, and it plays an irreplaceable role in activating the human immune
67 system and helping the human body digest and absorb nutrients.8 Increasing numbers of studies have
68 shown that bacterial growth in the small intestine is involved in the development of NAFLD,9 mainly
69 due to the following aspects (Fig 2): 1) The endogenous ethanol produced by the intestinal microflora
70 can lead to bacterial translocation by disrupting the intestinal mucosal barrier and increasing intestinal
71 permeability, eventually increasing the level of lipopolysaccharides (LPSs) in the portal vein.10 2)
72 Choline has a high affinity for triglycerides, and intestinal microbes metabolize choline in the host diet,
73 promoting the formation of fatty phospholipids in the liver and reducing the deposition of fat in the
74 liver to prevent the occurrence of NAFLD. Intestinal bacteria convert choline into toxic dimethylamine
75 and trimethylamine by the enzymes.11 These poisonous amines are absorbed by the liver to produce
76 trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO), which causes liver disease and ultimately choline deficiency.
77 However, mice cannot secrete trimethylamine, which demonstrated the important role of intestinal
79 and plays an important role in biochemical processes. Choline promotes fat transport in the form of
80 phospholipids, thus preventing abnormal accumulation of fat in the liver;13 when cells lack choline,
81 hepatocyte death and hepatic steatosis often occur.14 Choline deficiency may affect the composition of
82 gut microbiota and the potential development of fatty liver.15 Studies have shown that the composition
83 of intestinal microflora varies with dietary choline content. The relationship between choline
84 metabolism and intestinal microflora provides a new perspective for the development of targeted
85 therapy for intestinal microflora in NAFLD. 3) The release of LPSs from intestinal microbes can
86 activate inflammatory-related cytokines in intestinal epithelial cells (iECs) and promote the
88 production of gram-negative bacteria in the proximal part of the small intestine.17 Researchers found
89 that under NASH pathological conditions, SIBO significantly increased the levels of tumor necrosis
90 factor α (TNF-α), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST).18 In
91 addition, the prevalence of SIBO and TNF-α was higher than that of the control group. 19 These
92 findings may be related to the disturbance of the gut microflora, which inhibits the expression of
93 specific tight junction proteins, i.e., obstructive proteins and ZO-1, leading to increased intestinal
94 permeability.20
95 In terms of bacterial structure, some researchers found that compared with the simple fatty liver (SFL)
96 group and healthy group, the NASH group had a lower proportion of Bacteroides (P<0.05).21 A recent
97 randomized controlled trial showed that the abundance of anaerobes, such as Lactobacillus and
98 Bifidobacterium, was reduced in the NASH group (P<0.05) compared with the healthy group and the
99 SFL group, while the abundance of Enterobacteriaceae and other aerobic bacteria was significantly
100 increased (P<0.05).16 Scientists speculated that the increased intestinal permeability of hereditary obese
101 mice leads to increased portal endotoxemia, which increased the sensitivity of hepatic stellate cells to
102 bacterial endotoxin.22 In NAFLD patients, increased intestinal permeability was five times more likely
103 than in the control group.23 Likewise, the mechanism of NAFLD fibrosis induced by endotoxin may be
105 In addition, metabolic disorders, nutritional factors, genetic factors and bacterial dysfunctions play
106 important roles in the development of NAFLD.25 In terms of metabolism, disordered lipid metabolism
107 can induce intestinal flora disorder, and intestinal flora imbalance can aggravate disordered lipid
108 metabolism. Both lipid metabolism and intestinal flora disorders are related to the development of fatty
109 liver.26 LPS can directly stimulate hepatic stellate cells and Kupffer cells (KCs) and induce
110 steatohepatitis.27 As an LPS sensor, Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) plays an important role in the
112 NAFLD also is associated with IR, diabetes and obesity. First, IR increases the mobilization of fatty
113 acids from adipose tissue that are transported to the liver and may serve as a substrate for excess
114 triglyceride (TG) production leading to steatosis. Second, a large number of harmful substances, such
115 as LPS, produced by SIBO, can induce bacterial translocation and liver oxidative stress, causing liver
116 damage and fibrosis and leading to the occurrence of NASH.29 LPS can promote the release of TNF-α
117 in macrophages in the liver and promote the development of fatty liver through the sensitization of
118 TNF-α. In addition, TNF-α is associated with susceptibility to IR. This cytokine plays an important role
119 in the interaction between lipid accumulation and the inflammatory reaction in the human body.30 In
120 conclusion, changes in intestinal bacteria may lead to IR, which indicates that maintaining intestinal
121 barrier integrity and using intestinal microbial population manipulation as a new therapeutic strategy
124 The intestinal mucosal chemical barrier refers to the gastric secretion of gastric acid, mucus, mucin,
125 bile, glycoproteins, mucopolysaccharides, digestive enzymes, lysozymes and other chemical
126 substances. These substances can alter the attack sites of pathogenic bacteria and act as a chemical
127 barrier by destroying antigens in the diet and defending against microorganisms invading the small
128 intestine.32 The outer loose mucus layer contains a limited number of intestinal microbes, while the
129 inner mucus layer contains very few microbes. The mucus layer contains antimicrobial peptides, which
130 help prevent contact between bacteria and the epithelium (Fig 1).The chemical barrier can protect the
131 intestinal mucosa from erosion due to enzymes and acidic and alkali conditions. Gastric acid and bile
132 can inactivate bacteria. The pH of gastrointestinal mucus and digestive juice is not conducive to the
133 growth of bacteria. Gastric acid is the best bactericide in the gastrointestinal tract.33 Bile salts can be
134 combined with endotoxin, cholic acid can degrade endotoxin molecules, and lysozyme can destroy
135 bacterial cell walls, destroying bacteria. The digestive juice secreted by the intestines can dilute the
136 toxin and clean the intestinal cavity, making it difficult for the potentially pathogenic bacteria to adhere
137 to the intestinal epithelium.34 Intestinal secretions not only protect the intestinal epithelium from
138 physical damage but also adhere to antigenic material, making it more susceptible to degradation by
139 proteases.35 In addition, there are some complementary components in the secretion, which can help
140 intestinal immune cells clear pathogens.36 Bile acid can not only regulate the balance of glucose and
141 lipid metabolism but also maintain the stability of the intestinal environment by inhibiting bacterial
142 growth and bacterial translocation in the small intestine.37 In addition to these well-known functions,
143 accumulating data identify bile acids as pleiotropic signaling molecules that control gut-liver
144 crosstalk.38 By activating the expression of farnesoid X receptor (FXR),39 bile acid negatively regulates
145 the expression of sterol regulatory element binding protein-1c (SREBP-1C)40 and reduces the
146 expression of fat-related genes (such as acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase 1, acetyl coenzyme A
147 carboxylase 2, fatty acid synthetase, and glucose-6-phosphate deaminase), reducing the occurrence of
148 NAFLD.41
150 The physical intestinal barrier is mainly composed of the intestinal mucous layer and epithelial cells.
151 The junction complexes between epithelial cells include tight junction, adhesion junction, desmosome
152 and gap junction (Fig 3). The iECs are composed of a layer of columnar epithelial cells that forms the
153 first line of defense between the intestinal lumen (intestinal bacteria and toxin macromolecules) and the
154 inner milieu.42 The intestinal epithelial tight junction, as a dynamic permeability barrier, has dual
155 functions: preventing potential harmful substances or pathogens from entering the body while allowing
156 nutrients, ions and water to enter the body. Studies have shown that increased intestinal mucosal
157 inflammation and destruction43 of intestinal epithelial barrier lead to the possibility of translocation of
158 microbial products, thereby inducing NAFLD.31 In the pathological conditions of hypoxia and
159 inflammatory stimulation, tight junction proteins can produce contraction phenomena and move to the
160 cytoplasm. The cell pore is clearly expanded, and the permeability of the intestinal mucosa increases,
161 resulting in intestinal bacterial translocation and the release of metabolite LPSs into the blood and liver
162 through the portal system,31 stimulating liver KCs44 and releasing inflammatory factors, such as TNF-α
163 and IL-6. The inflammatory chemokines act on liver cells to make them liposomes.
165 The immune barrier is mainly composed of immunoglobulin A (IgA) secreted by lymphocytes and
166 plasma cells.45 A study found that the intestinal epithelium can also express innate immunity by
167 regulating molecular TLRs.46 Because IgA has a special affinity for gram-negative bacteria in the
168 intestinal tract, the function of IgA is obviously inhibited when the intestinal mucosa is damaged, thus
169 promoting bacterial translocation in the intestine.47 The LPS produced by bacterial metabolism is
170 combined with the corresponding TLRs, producing pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs)
171 in the intestinal tract.48 The activation of nuclear factor kappa-B (NF-κB) and the mitogen-activated
172 protein kinase (MAPK) signal transduction pathway stimulates the formation of inflammatory
173 chemokines, such as TNF-α and IL-6, and leads to IR, which further promotes the development of
175 Abnormal intestinal barrier function can lead to disorder of digestion and absorption of nutrients, slow
176 growth, reduced disease resistance, and increased susceptibility to pathogenic microorganisms and lead
177 to the occurrence of various diseases.50 When the intestinal epithelial tight junction changes, decreases
178 or is absent, the interstitial permeability of iEC increases. Bacteria, toxins and macromolecules can
179 enter the systemic circulation through tight junctions. For example, some intestinal inflammatory
180 diseases, such as inflammatory bowel syndrome (IBS),51 are characterized by increased iEC bypass
181 permeability. In the case of massive blood loss, intestinal blood supply is not a priority, and the
182 quantity and quality of lamina propria plasma cells decrease, which leads to the decline in of IgA and
183 the ability to match sIgA.52 The decrease in immunoglobulin secreted by B lymphocytes and the
184 decrease in sIgA content in the mucosal surface are conducive to the invasion of bacteria and toxins
185 into the body and can also cause excessive production of oxygen free radicals. The intestine contains a
186 microbial ecosystem in which the activity of microorganisms plays an important role in the function of
187 the intestinal immune system.53 Balanced microorganisms play an important role in the healthy
188 development of the intestinal mucosal immune system. Like antimicrobial peptides, probiotics,
189 glutamine and acidifiers, they can regulate animal intestinal health by improving intestinal pH;
190 activating endogenous enzymes; and mobilizing, stimulating and strengthening the autoimmune
191 system.54
193 Because of the close relationship between the liver and gastrointestinal tract, it is not surprising that
194 intestinal microflora disorders are associated with liver fat accumulation.55-58 Although the exact
195 mechanism of intestinal microflora in the development and progress of NAFLD is not yet clear, its
196 potential explanation is related to bacterial overgrowth, gut leakiness,57 increased endotoxemia
197 absorption,59-60 and inflammation. In recent years, knowledge of gut microbiota has increased, has
198 enhancing the understanding of the metabolic and immune potential and microbial-host interactions,
199 mainly in the intestine, including the liver and other organs. The role and characteristics of metabolites
200 produced by microorganisms and their direct roles in the intestine and other body parts remain unclear.
201 However, there is growing evidence that the gut microbiota is the real goal of NAFLD interventions. In
202 view of the key role of the gut microbiota in the pathogenesis of metabolic diseases,61-62 the design of
203 gut microbiota regulation strategies to improve NAFLD may be considered as a new treatment option
204 for these patients. In this respect, probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics have attracted wide attention.
205 Probiotics
206 Probiotics is a group of complex bacteriam.63 Commonly used probiotics include Lactobacillus,
207 Bifidobacterium and Polycoccus, which can inhibit the expansion of gram-negative pathogens and have
208 a wide range of beneficial effects on host metabolism.64-65 Some evidence has indicated that probiotics
209 have the ability to improve liver damage and reduce bacterial translocation.66 Early investigations of
210 probiotics have shown that it is possible to improve the pathophysiology and development of
211 NAFLD.67-68 A recent analysis showed that probiotics can reduce the levels of liver transaminase, total
212 hepatic sterol and TNF.69 Probiotic therapy of patients with NAFLD has been supported not only in
213 clinical practice but also in animal experiments.70 It can improve the immunity of the host, inhibit the
214 growth and translocation of harmful bacteria, protect the intestinal mucosal barrier, reduce the
215 absorption of toxins,71 significantly reduce the expression and secretion of proinflammatory factors in
216 the liver,72 improve IR and reduce oxidative stress in NAFLD patients; it can also assist in the
217 development and stability of the intestinal flora and prevent the propagation of pathogenic bacteria.
218 Probiotics can reduce intestinal endotoxemia by restoring the intestinal microecological balance,
220 However, the exact mechanism of how probiotics do this is not fully understood. The possible
10
221 mechanisms proposed include microbial interaction and competition with pathogenic bacteria, which
222 can eradicate pathogenic bacteria and promote the healthy balance of intestinal microflora.74-75 In
223 addition, probiotics can effectively improve the integrity of the epithelial barrier and stimulate the host
224 immune response.76-77 Furthermore, probiotics have synergistic effects with chemical drugs, such as
225 statins, in the treatment of NAFLD, which highlights the great potential of probiotics alone or in
226 combination with other drugs.78-79 However, the clinical efficacy of probiotics still needs further
227 verification with a larger number of participants, dose optimization and even product formulation.
228 Prebiotics
229 At present, probiotics and prebiotics play a key role in the treatment and prevention of NAFLD, but
230 there are often conflicting results; therefore, more rigorous experimental design, improvement in the
231 clinical research quality and confirmation of the therapeutic effects are necessary.75 In a meta-analysis,
232 the decrease of AST, ALT and gamma-glutamyl transferase (γ-GT) is related to prebiotics and
233 probiotics, so altering the composition and metabolism of intestinal microbial has potential protective
234 effect on NAFLD.80 Although the specific effects of probiotics on gut microbiota remain unclear, most
235 studies have shown that the increase in Bifidobacteria and levels of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii and
236 the decrease in Bacteroides intestinalis, Bacteroides vulgatus and Propionibacterium are related to
237 endotoxemia.81-83 While these studies suggest that probiotics may be used as potential drugs to treat
238 NAFLD, the overall changes in intestinal microflora need further study. In addition, there are no
239 reports on the effects of probiotics on liver lipids or liver histology, and there is no evidence linking
241 Synbiotics
242 Synbiotics are a complex of probiotics and prebiotics that act as a nutritional supplement to produce
11
243 synergistic effects. Previous studies have reported that synbiotics have a potentially stronger role in
244 regulating gut microbiota than probiotics or prebiotics alone.85-87 In recent years, synbiotics have been
245 widely used in metabolic diseases.62, 88 There is abundant evidence that synbiotics can improve lipid
246 metabolism, IR, inflammatory mediators and liver enzyme markers by improving the form or function
247 of gut microbiota.87, 89-90 Scientists have elucidated the potential effects of synthetic compounds in
248 NASH models and found that they can regulate gut microbiota, reduce digestion and endotoxemia.61
249 However, the available evidence is inconsistent, and the amount of synbiotic data need to be
250 supplemented for clinical treatment of NAFLD patients. Drug therapy for NAFLD is still in its infancy.
251 Synbiotics might be beneficial for NAFLD, especially for those with metabolic comorbidities. In order
252 to verify the biochemical and histological efficacy of combined biotherapy in patients with NAFLD,
253 more participants are required to participate in further studies for longer treatment periods. However,
254 many discrepant results have been observed with respect to gut microbiota-targeted therapies,
255 especially in clinical studies. Probiotics have been proposed to constitute an effective preventive
256 treatment for antibiotic-induced dysbiosis and associated adverse effects in mice91 and in some,92 but
257 not all, human studies.93-94 Importantly, adverse effects associated with probiotic application may be
258 underreported in clinical trials,95 further complicating the efficacy debate. Similarly, the role of
259 probiotics in the treatment of infections or existing diseases,96 such as inflammatory bowel disease,
260 remains a controversial issue,97 and some studies have even reported probiotic-associated morbidity
261 and mortality.98 Therefore, medical institutions such as the European Food Safety Agency100 or the
262 Food and Drug Administration of the United States101 refused to approve probiotics as a form of
263 medical intervention.102 Given this probiotic effect, it is critically important to further elucidate
12
266 In conclusion, the manifestations of intestinal barrier damage include the destruction of the intestinal
267 epithelium, the growth of bacteria in the small intestine, and an increase in the level of LPS. Intestinal
268 barrier damage is involved in the development of NAFLD. Intestinal barrier defects have been
269 associated with NAFLD and therefore constitute a new therapeutic target. Microorganisms have
270 potential applications in the treatment of NAFLD, but the limitations of NAFLD diagnosis and
271 biomarkers limit further research. At the same time, personalized microbial therapy is still challenging.
272 Probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics have a central importance in maintaining a healthy intestinal
273 microflora balance. They assist in curbing endotoxemia by bringing about a massive decline in the
274 population of pathogenic bacteria, achieved by tweaking the flora. Based on the complex relationship
275 between intestinal microflora and NAFLD, targeted therapy of intestinal microflora using probiotics,
276 probiotics and synbiotics has become a promising method. However, the existing studies mainly focus
277 on the protection of bacterial communities and do not provide functional information between intestinal
278 microflora and host. Whether intestinal microflora is the cause of the disease or whether it has an effect
279 on the pathophysiology of the disease is still unclear. However, the relationship between intestinal
280 microflora and NAFLD should continue to be explored in the following aspects: (1) How to better
281 understand the specificity of patients; (2) Develop potential NAFLD biomarkers; (3) Deeply explore
282 the relationship between intestinal microflora and NAFLD; (4) Determine whether lifestyle interferes
283 with the intestinal tract; and (5) How to interact with intestinal microflora and the possible health
284 impact.
285 To better understand the complex interactions between intestinal microflora and hosts. In addition to
286 systematic biology methods, we also need to apply more technical methods, carry out necessary
13
287 cooperative research, explore the diversity of biological samples, and investigate its pathogenesis and
292 ORCID
294 Funding
295 The work was financially supported in part by the National Key R&D Program of China [grant number
296 2017YFD0502200]; Group control technology and product development and demonstration of
297 important mass production disease groups in dairy cattle [grant number GA16B20]; China Postdoctoral
298 Science Foundation [grant number 2017M620124; 2018T110320]; Doctoral Program Foundation of
299 Heilongjiang Bayi Agricultural University of China [grant number XDB-2016-10]; Postdoctoral
300 Program Foundation of Heilongjiang Bayi Agricultural University [grant number 601038] and the
302 Notes
303 The authors declare no competing financial interest. YZC and QJW contributed equally to this paper;
306 NAFLD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; IR, insulin resistance; FFA, free fatty acid; NASH,
307 nonalcoholic steatohepatitis; T2D, type 2 diabetes; LPSs, lipopolysaccharides; FMO1, flavin
309 intestinal bacterial over growth; TNF-α, tumor necrosis factor α; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST,
310 serum aspartate aminotransferase; SFL, simple fatty liver; KCs, Kupffer cells; TLR4, Toll-like receptor
14
311 4; FXR, farnesoid X receptor; SREBP-1C, sterol regulatory element binding protein-1c; PAMPs,
312 pathogen-associated molecular patterns; NF-κB, nuclear factor kappa-B; MAPK, mitogen-mediated
313 protein kinase; γ-GT, gamma-glutamyl transferase; iEC, intestinal epithelial cells; iIEL, intestinal
314 intraepithelial lymphoid tissue; LPLs, lamina propria lymphocytes; PPs, Peyer’s patches; sIgA,
316 REFERENCES
317 (1) Cui, Y.; Wang, Q.; Li, X.; Zhang, X. Experimental nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in mice leads to
318 cytochrome p450 2a5 upregulation through nuclear factor erythroid 2-like 2 translocation. Redox Biol.
320 (2) Szabo, G. Gut-liver axis in alcoholic liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2015, 148 (1), 30-36.
321 (3) Bordalo Tonucci, L.; Dos Santos, K. M.; De Luces Fortes Ferreira, C. L.; Ribeiro, S. M.; De Oliveira,
322 L. L.; Martino, H. S. Gut microbiota and probiotics: Focus on diabetes mellitus. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr.
324 (4) Portune, K. J.; Benitez-Paez, A.; Del Pulgar, E. M.; Cerrudo, V.; Sanz, Y. Gut microbiota, diet, and
325 obesity-related disorders-The good, the bad, and the future challenges. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2017, 61
326 (1).
327 (5) Sanduzzi Zamparelli, M.; Compare, D.; Coccoli, P.; Rocco, A.; Nardone, O. M.; Marrone, G.;
328 Gasbarrini, A.; Grieco, A.; Nardone, G.; Miele, L. The Metabolic Role of Gut Microbiota in the
329 Development of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Cardiovascular Disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2016, 17
330 (8).
331 (6) Lambert, J. E.; Parnell, J. A.; Eksteen, B.; Raman, M.; Bomhof, M. R.; Rioux, K. P.; Madsen, K. L.;
332 Reimer, R. A. Gut microbiota manipulation with prebiotics in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver
333 disease: a randomized controlled trial protocol. BMC Gastroenterol. 2015, 15, 169.
15
334 (7) Milosevic, I.; Vujovic, A.; Barac, A.; Djelic, M.; Korac, M.; Radovanovic Spurnic, A.; Gmizic, I.;
335 Stevanovic, O.; Djordjevic, V.; Lekic, N.; Russo, E.; Amedei, A. Gut-Liver Axis, Gut Microbiota, and Its
336 Modulation in the Management of Liver Diseases: A Review of the Literature. Int J Mol Sci. 2019, 20
337 (2).
338 (8) Doulberis, M.; Kotronis, G.; Gialamprinou, D.; Kountouras, J.; Katsinelos, P. Non-alcoholic fatty
339 liver disease: An update with special focus on the role of gut microbiota. Metabolism. 2017, 71,
340 182-197.
341 (9) Tremaroli, V.; Backhed, F. Functional interactions between the gut microbiota and host
343 (10) Malaguarnera, G.; Giordano, M.; Nunnari, G.; Bertino, G.; Malaguarnera, M. Gut microbiota in
344 alcoholic liver disease: pathogenetic role and therapeutic perspectives. World J Gastroenterol. 2014,
346 (11) Zeisel, S. H.; Wishnok, J. S.; Blusztajn, J. K. Formation of methylamines from ingested choline and
348 (12) al-Waiz, M.; Mikov, M.; Mitchell, S. C.; Smith, R. L. The exogenous origin of trimethylamine in
350 (13) Corbin, K. D.; Zeisel, S. H. Choline metabolism provides novel insights into nonalcoholic fatty
351 liver disease and its progression. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2012, 28 (2), 159-165.
352 (14) Zeisel, S. H. Choline: critical role during fetal development and dietary requirements in adults.
354 (15) Spencer, M. D.; Hamp, T. J.; Reid, R. W.; Fischer, L. M.; Zeisel, S. H.; Fodor, A. A. Association
355 between composition of the human gastrointestinal microbiome and development of fatty liver with
16
357 (16) Compare, D.; Coccoli, P.; Rocco, A.; Nardone, O. M.; De Maria, S.; Carteni, M.; Nardone, G.
358 Gut--liver axis: the impact of gut microbiota on non alcoholic fatty liver disease. Nutr Metab
360 (17) Fialho, A.; Fialho, A.; Thota, P.; McCullough, A. J.; Shen, B. Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth
361 Is Associated with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2016, 25 (2), 159-165.
362 (18) Wu, W. C.; Zhao, W.; Li, S. Small intestinal bacteria overgrowth decreases small intestinal
363 motility in the NASH rats. World J Gastroenterol. 2008, 14 (2), 313-317.
364 (19) Wigg, A. J.; Roberts-Thomson, I. C.; Dymock, R. B.; McCarthy, P. J.; Grose, R. H.; Cummins, A. G.
365 The role of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, intestinal permeability, endotoxaemia, and tumour
366 necrosis factor alpha in the pathogenesis of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Gut. 2001, 48 (2), 206-211.
367 (20) Cani, P. D.; Amar, J.; Iglesias, M. A.; Poggi, M.; Knauf, C.; Bastelica, D.; Neyrinck, A. M.; Fava, F.;
368 Tuohy, K. M.; Chabo, C.; Waget, A.; Delmee, E.; Cousin, B.; Sulpice, T.; Chamontin, B.; Ferrieres, J.;
369 Tanti, J. F.; Gibson, G. R.; Casteilla, L.; Delzenne, N. M.; Alessi, M. C.; Burcelin, R. Metabolic
370 endotoxemia initiates obesity and insulin resistance. Diabetes. 2007, 56 (7), 1761-1772.
371 (21) Mouzaki, M.; Comelli, E. M.; Arendt, B. M.; Bonengel, J.; Fung, S. K.; Fischer, S. E.; McGilvray, I.
372 D.; Allard, J. P. Intestinal microbiota in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology.
374 (22) Brun, P.; Castagliuolo, I.; Di Leo, V.; Buda, A.; Pinzani, M.; Palu, G.; Martines, D. Increased
375 intestinal permeability in obese mice: new evidence in the pathogenesis of nonalcoholic
376 steatohepatitis. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2007, 292 (2), G518-525.
377 (23) Bluemel, S.; Williams, B.; Knight, R.; Schnabl, B. Precision medicine in alcoholic and nonalcoholic
17
378 fatty liver disease via modulating the gut microbiota. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2016,
380 (24) Li, F.; Sun, G.; Wang, Z.; Wu, W.; Guo, H.; Peng, L.; Wu, L.; Guo, X.; Yang, Y. Characteristics of
381 fecal microbiota in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease patients. Sci China Life Sci. 2018, 61 (7), 770-778.
382 (25) Imajo, K.; Yoneda, M.; Ogawa, Y.; Wada, K.; Nakajima, A. Microbiota and nonalcoholic
384 (26) Haslam, D. B. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and the intestinal microbiota. Hepatology. 2017, 65
386 (27) Bilzer, M.; Roggel, F.; Gerbes, A. L. Role of Kupffer cells in host defense and liver disease. Liver
388 (28) Stams, A. J.; Plugge, C. M. Electron transfer in syntrophic communities of anaerobic bacteria and
390 (29) Brandl, K.; Schnabl, B. Intestinal microbiota and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Curr Opin
392 (30) Wang, J. K.; Feng, Z. W.; Li, Y. C.; Li, Q. Y.; Tao, X. Y. Association of tumor necrosis factor-alpha
393 gene promoter polymorphism at sites -308 and -238 with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a
395 (31) Rahman, K.; Desai, C.; Iyer, S. S.; Thorn, N. E.; Kumar, P.; Liu, Y.; Smith, T.; Neish, A. S.; Li, H.; Tan,
396 S.; Wu, P.; Liu, X.; Yu, Y.; Farris, A. B.; Nusrat, A.; Parkos, C. A.; Anania, F. A. Loss of Junctional
397 Adhesion Molecule A Promotes Severe Steatohepatitis in Mice on a Diet High in Saturated Fat,
398 Fructose, and Cholesterol. Gastroenterology. 2016, 151 (4), 733-746 e712.
399 (32) de Aguiar Vallim, T. Q.; Tarling, E. J.; Edwards, P. A. Pleiotropic roles of bile acids in metabolism.
18
401 (33) Ohman, L.; Tornblom, H.; Simren, M. Crosstalk at the mucosal border: importance of the gut
402 microenvironment in IBS. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015, 12 (1), 36-49.
403 (34) Barreau, F.; Hugot, J. P. Intestinal barrier dysfunction triggered by invasive bacteria. Curr Opin
405 (35) Allert, S.; Forster, T. M.; Svensson, C. M.; Richardson, J. P.; Pawlik, T.; Hebecker, B.; Rudolphi, S.;
406 Juraschitz, M.; Schaller, M.; Blagojevic, M.; Morschhauser, J.; Figge, M. T.; Jacobsen, I. D.; Naglik, J. R.;
407 Kasper, L.; Mogavero, S.; Hube, B. Candida albicans-Induced Epithelial Damage Mediates
409 (36) Hensley-McBain, T.; Berard, A. R.; Manuzak, J. A.; Miller, C. J.; Zevin, A. S.; Polacino, P.; Gile, J.;
410 Agricola, B.; Cameron, M.; Hu, S. L.; Estes, J. D.; Reeves, R. K.; Smedley, J.; Keele, B. F.; Burgener, A. D.;
411 Klatt, N. R. Intestinal damage precedes mucosal immune dysfunction in SIV infection. Mucosal
413 (37) Poeta, M.; Pierri, L.; Vajro, P. Gut-Liver Axis Derangement in Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.
415 (38) Wahlstrom, A.; Sayin, S. I.; Marschall, H. U.; Backhed, F. Intestinal Crosstalk between Bile Acids
416 and Microbiota and Its Impact on Host Metabolism. Cell Metab. 2016, 24 (1), 41-50.
417 (39) Kim, S. G.; Kim, B. K.; Kim, K.; Fang, S. Bile Acid Nuclear Receptor Farnesoid X Receptor:
418 Therapeutic Target for Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Endocrinol Metab (Seoul). 2016, 31 (4),
419 500-504.
420 (40) McMahan, R. H.; Wang, X. X.; Cheng, L. L.; Krisko, T.; Smith, M.; El Kasmi, K.; Pruzanski, M.;
421 Adorini, L.; Golden-Mason, L.; Levi, M.; Rosen, H. R. Bile acid receptor activation modulates hepatic
19
422 monocyte activity and improves nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. J Biol Chem. 2013, 288 (17),
423 11761-11770.
424 (41) Schneider, K. M.; Albers, S.; Trautwein, C. Role of bile acids in the gut-liver axis. J Hepatol. 2018,
426 (42) Ulluwishewa, D.; Anderson, R. C.; McNabb, W. C.; Moughan, P. J.; Wells, J. M.; Roy, N. C.
427 Regulation of tight junction permeability by intestinal bacteria and dietary components. J Nutr. 2011,
429 (43) Li, Y.; Huang, B.; Jiang, X.; Chen, W.; Zhang, J.; Wei, Y.; Chen, Y.; Lian, M.; Bian, Z.; Miao, Q.;
430 Peng, Y.; Fang, J.; Wang, Q.; Tang, R.; Gershwin, M. E.; Ma, X. Mucosal-Associated Invariant T Cells
431 Improve Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Through Regulating Macrophage Polarization. Front
433 (44) Hundertmark, J.; Krenkel, O.; Tacke, F. Adapted Immune Responses of Myeloid-Derived Cells in
435 (45) Martinez-Lopez, M.; Iborra, S.; Conde-Garrosa, R.; Mastrangelo, A.; Danne, C.; Mann, E. R.; Reid,
436 D. M.; Gaboriau-Routhiau, V.; Chaparro, M.; Lorenzo, M. P.; Minnerup, L.; Saz-Leal, P.; Slack, E.; Kemp,
437 B.; Gisbert, J. P.; Dzionek, A.; Robinson, M. J.; Ruperez, F. J.; Cerf-Bensussan, N.; Brown, G. D.;
438 Bernardo, D.; LeibundGut-Landmann, S.; Sancho, D. Microbiota Sensing by Mincle-Syk Axis in
439 Dendritic Cells Regulates Interleukin-17 and -22 Production and Promotes Intestinal Barrier Integrity.
441 (46) Rakoff-Nahoum, S.; Paglino, J.; Eslami-Varzaneh, F.; Edberg, S.; Medzhitov, R. Recognition of
442 commensal microflora by toll-like receptors is required for intestinal homeostasis. Cell. 2004, 118 (2),
443 229-241.
20
444 (47) Pellicciotta, M.; Rigoni, R.; Falcone, E. L.; Holland, S. M.; Villa, A.; Cassani, B. The microbiome
446 (48) Bierschenk, D.; Boucher, D.; Schroder, K. Salmonella-induced inflammasome activation in
448 (49) Yuan, Y.; Naito, H.; Jia, X.; Kitamori, K.; Nakajima, T. Combination of Hypertension Along with a
449 High Fat and Cholesterol Diet Induces Severe Hepatic Inflammation in Rats via a Signaling Network
450 Comprising NF-kappaB, MAPK, and Nrf2 Pathways. Nutrients. 2017, 9 (9).
451 (50) Vancamelbeke, M.; Vermeire, S. The intestinal barrier: a fundamental role in health and disease.
453 (51) Sharkey, K. A.; Beck, P. L.; McKay, D. M. Neuroimmunophysiology of the gut: advances and
454 emerging concepts focusing on the epithelium. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018, 15 (12),
455 765-784.
456 (52) Jin, M.; Zhu, Y.; Shao, D.; Zhao, K.; Xu, C.; Li, Q.; Yang, H.; Huang, Q.; Shi, J. Effects of
457 polysaccharide from mycelia of Ganoderma lucidum on intestinal barrier functions of rats. Int J Biol
459 (53) Salvo Romero, E.; Alonso Cotoner, C.; Pardo Camacho, C.; Casado Bedmar, M.; Vicario, M. The
460 intestinal barrier function and its involvement in digestive disease. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2015, 107
462 (54) Bron, P. A.; Kleerebezem, M.; Brummer, R. J.; Cani, P. D.; Mercenier, A.; MacDonald, T. T.;
463 Garcia-Rodenas, C. L.; Wells, J. M. Can probiotics modulate human disease by impacting intestinal
465 (55) Boursier, J.; Mueller, O.; Barret, M.; Machado, M.; Fizanne, L.; Araujo-Perez, F.; Guy, C. D.; Seed,
21
466 P. C.; Rawls, J. F.; David, L. A.; Hunault, G.; Oberti, F.; Cales, P.; Diehl, A. M. The severity of
467 nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with gut dysbiosis and shift in the metabolic function of
469 (56) Cani, P. D. When specific gut microbes reveal a possible link between hepatic steatosis and
471 (57) Le Roy, T.; Llopis, M.; Lepage, P.; Bruneau, A.; Rabot, S.; Bevilacqua, C.; Martin, P.; Philippe, C.;
472 Walker, F.; Bado, A.; Perlemuter, G.; Cassard-Doulcier, A. M.; Gerard, P. Intestinal microbiota
473 determines development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in mice. Gut. 2013, 62 (12), 1787-1794.
474 (58) Zhu, L.; Baker, S. S.; Gill, C.; Liu, W.; Alkhouri, R.; Baker, R. D.; Gill, S. R. Characterization of gut
477 (59) Nolan, J. P.; Leibowitz, A. I. Endotoxins in liver disease. Gastroenterology. 1978, 75 (4), 765-766.
478 (60) Kirsch, R.; Clarkson, V.; Verdonk, R. C.; Marais, A. D.; Shephard, E. G.; Ryffel, B.; de la, M. H. P.
479 Rodent nutritional model of steatohepatitis: effects of endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide) and tumor
480 necrosis factor alpha deficiency. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006, 21 (1 Pt 1), 174-182.
481 (61) Cortez-Pinto, H.; Borralho, P.; Machado, J.; Lopes, M. T.; Gato, I. V.; Santos, A. M.; Guerreiro, A.
482 S. Microbiota Modulation With Synbiotic Decreases Liver Fibrosis in a High Fat Choline Deficient Diet
483 Mice Model of Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis (NASH). GE Port J Gastroenterol. 2016, 23 (3), 132-141.
484 (62) Markowiak, P.; Slizewska, K. Effects of Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Synbiotics on Human Health.
486 (63) Sanders, M. E. Probiotics: definition, sources, selection, and uses. Clin Infect Dis. 2008, 46 Suppl
22
488 (64) Yoo, J. Y.; Kim, S. S. Probiotics and Prebiotics: Present Status and Future Perspectives on
490 (65) Miura, K.; Ohnishi, H. Role of gut microbiota and Toll-like receptors in nonalcoholic fatty liver
492 (66) Saltzman, E. T.; Palacios, T.; Thomsen, M.; Vitetta, L. Intestinal Microbiome Shifts, Dysbiosis,
493 Inflammation, and Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Front Microbiol. 2018, 9, 61.
494 (67) Day, C. P.; James, O. F. Steatohepatitis: a tale of two "hits"? Gastroenterology. 1998, 114 (4),
495 842-845.
496 (68) Tilg, H.; Moschen, A. R. Evolution of inflammation in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: the
498 (69) Marchesi, J. R.; Adams, D. H.; Fava, F.; Hermes, G. D.; Hirschfield, G. M.; Hold, G.; Quraishi, M.
499 N.; Kinross, J.; Smidt, H.; Tuohy, K. M.; Thomas, L. V.; Zoetendal, E. G.; Hart, A. The gut microbiota and
500 host health: a new clinical frontier. Gut. 2016, 65 (2), 330-339.
501 (70) Kobyliak, N.; Abenavoli, L.; Falalyeyeva, T.; Beregova, T. Efficacy of Probiotics and Smectite in
502 Rats with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Ann Hepatol. 2018, 17 (1), 153-161.
503 (71) Paolella, G.; Mandato, C.; Pierri, L.; Poeta, M.; Di Stasi, M.; Vajro, P. Gut-liver axis and probiotics:
504 their role in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2014, 20 (42), 15518-15531.
505 (72) Fatima, N.; Akhtar, T.; Sheikh, N. Prebiotics: A Novel Approach to Treat Hepatocellular
507 (73) Borrelli, A.; Bonelli, P.; Tuccillo, F. M.; Goldfine, I. D.; Evans, J. L.; Buonaguro, F. M.; Mancini, A.
508 Role of gut microbiota and oxidative stress in the progression of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease to
509 hepatocarcinoma: Current and innovative therapeutic approaches. Redox Biol. 2018, 15, 467-479.
23
510 (74) Walker, A. W.; Ince, J.; Duncan, S. H.; Webster, L. M.; Holtrop, G.; Ze, X.; Brown, D.; Stares, M.
511 D.; Scott, P.; Bergerat, A.; Louis, P.; McIntosh, F.; Johnstone, A. M.; Lobley, G. E.; Parkhill, J.; Flint, H. J.
512 Dominant and diet-responsive groups of bacteria within the human colonic microbiota. ISME J. 2011,
514 (75) Tarantino, G.; Finelli, C. Systematic review on intervention with prebiotics/probiotics in patients
515 with obesity-related nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Future Microbiol. 2015, 10 (5), 889-902.
516 (76) Wang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Sidhu, A.; Ma, Z.; McClain, C.; Feng, W. Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG culture
517 supernatant ameliorates acute alcohol-induced intestinal permeability and liver injury. Am J Physiol
519 (77) Spruss, A.; Bergheim, I. Dietary fructose and intestinal barrier: potential risk factor in the
520 pathogenesis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. J Nutr Biochem. 2009, 20 (9), 657-662.
521 (78) Shavakhi, A.; Minakari, M.; Firouzian, H.; Assali, R.; Hekmatdoost, A.; Ferns, G. Effect of a
522 Probiotic and Metformin on Liver Aminotransferases in Non-alcoholic Steatohepatitis: A Double Blind
523 Randomized Clinical Trial. Int J Prev Med. 2013, 4 (5), 531-537.
524 (79) Zvenigorodskaia, L. A.; Cherkashova, E. A.; Samsonova, N. G.; Nilova, T. V.; Sil'verstova, S.
525 [Advisability of using probiotics in the treatment of atherogenic dyslipidemia]. Eksp Klin
527 (80) Loman, B. R.; Hernandez-Saavedra, D.; An, R.; Rector, R. S. Prebiotic and probiotic treatment of
528 nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr Rev. 2018, 76 (11),
529 822-839.
530 (81) Lecerf, J. M.; Depeint, F.; Clerc, E.; Dugenet, Y.; Niamba, C. N.; Rhazi, L.; Cayzeele, A.; Abdelnour,
531 G.; Jaruga, A.; Younes, H.; Jacobs, H.; Lambrey, G.; Abdelnour, A. M.; Pouillart, P. R.
24
532 Xylo-oligosaccharide (XOS) in combination with inulin modulates both the intestinal environment and
533 immune status in healthy subjects, while XOS alone only shows prebiotic properties. Br J Nutr. 2012,
535 (82) Kellow, N. J.; Coughlan, M. T.; Reid, C. M. Metabolic benefits of dietary prebiotics in human
536 subjects: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Br J Nutr. 2014, 111 (7), 1147-1161.
537 (83) Vulevic, J.; Drakoularakou, A.; Yaqoob, P.; Tzortzis, G.; Gibson, G. R. Modulation of the fecal
538 microflora profile and immune function by a novel trans-galactooligosaccharide mixture (B-GOS) in
540 (84) Notay, M.; Foolad, N.; Vaughn, A. R.; Sivamani, R. K. Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Synbiotics for the
541 Treatment and Prevention of Adult Dermatological Diseases. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2017, 18 (6),
542 721-732.
543 (85) Khalesi, S.; Johnson, D. W.; Campbell, K.; Williams, S.; Fenning, A.; Saluja, S.; Irwin, C. Effect of
544 probiotics and synbiotics consumption on serum concentrations of liver function test enzymes: a
545 systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nutr. 2018, 57 (6), 2037-2053.
546 (86) Ebrahimi, Z. S.; Nasli-Esfahani, E.; Nadjarzade, A.; Mozaffari-Khosravi, H. Effect of symbiotic
547 supplementation on glycemic control, lipid profiles and microalbuminuria in patients with non-obese
548 type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2017, 16, 23.
549 (87) Tabrizi, R.; Moosazadeh, M.; Lankarani, K. B.; Akbari, M.; Heydari, S. T.; Kolahdooz, F.; Asemi, Z.
550 The Effects of Synbiotic Supplementation on Glucose Metabolism and Lipid Profiles in Patients with
551 Diabetes: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Probiotics
553 (88) Tunapong, W.; Apaijai, N.; Yasom, S.; Tanajak, P.; Wanchai, K.; Chunchai, T.; Kerdphoo, S.;
25
554 Eaimworawuthikul, S.; Thiennimitr, P.; Pongchaidecha, A.; Lungkaphin, A.; Pratchayasakul, W.;
555 Chattipakorn, S. C.; Chattipakorn, N. Chronic treatment with prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics
556 attenuated cardiac dysfunction by improving cardiac mitochondrial dysfunction in male obese
558 (89) Ferolla, S. M.; Couto, C. A.; Costa-Silva, L.; Armiliato, G. N.; Pereira, C. A.; Martins, F. S.; Ferrari
559 Mde, L.; Vilela, E. G.; Torres, H. O.; Cunha, A. S.; Ferrari, T. C. Beneficial Effect of Synbiotic
560 Supplementation on Hepatic Steatosis and Anthropometric Parameters, But Not on Gut Permeability
562 (90) Mofidi, F.; Poustchi, H.; Yari, Z.; Nourinayyer, B.; Merat, S.; Sharafkhah, M.; Malekzadeh, R.;
563 Hekmatdoost, A. Synbiotic supplementation in lean patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a
564 pilot, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. Br J Nutr. 2017, 117 (5), 662-668.
565 (91) Ekmekciu, I.; von Klitzing, E.; Fiebiger, U.; Neumann, C.; Bacher, P.; Scheffold, A.; Bereswill, S.;
566 Heimesaat, M. M. The Probiotic Compound VSL#3 Modulates Mucosal, Peripheral, and Systemic
567 Immunity Following Murine Broad-Spectrum Antibiotic Treatment. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2017, 7,
568 167.
569 (92) Hempel, S.; Newberry, S. J.; Maher, A. R.; Wang, Z.; Miles, J. N.; Shanman, R.; Johnsen, B.;
570 Shekelle, P. G. Probiotics for the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-associated diarrhea: a
571 systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2012, 307 (18), 1959-1969.
572 (93) Olek, A.; Woynarowski, M.; Ahren, I. L.; Kierkus, J.; Socha, P.; Larsson, N.; Onning, G. Efficacy and
573 Safety of Lactobacillus plantarum DSM 9843 (LP299V) in the Prevention of Antibiotic-Associated
26
576 (94) Allen, S. J.; Wareham, K.; Wang, D.; Bradley, C.; Hutchings, H.; Harris, W.; Dhar, A.; Brown, H.;
577 Foden, A.; Gravenor, M. B.; Mack, D. Lactobacilli and bifidobacteria in the prevention of
578 antibiotic-associated diarrhoea and Clostridium difficile diarrhoea in older inpatients (PLACIDE): a
579 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2013, 382 (9900), 1249-1257.
580 (95) Bafeta, A.; Koh, M.; Riveros, C.; Ravaud, P. Harms Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials of
581 Interventions Aimed at Modifying Microbiota: A Systematic Review. Ann Intern Med. 2018, 169 (4),
582 240-247.
583 (96) Rondanelli, M.; Faliva, M. A.; Perna, S.; Giacosa, A.; Peroni, G.; Castellazzi, A. M. Using probiotics
584 in clinical practice: Where are we now? A review of existing meta-analyses. Gut Microbes. 2017, 8 (6),
585 521-543.
586 (97) Crovesy, L.; Ostrowski, M.; Ferreira, D.; Rosado, E. L.; Soares-Mota, M. Effect of Lactobacillus on
587 body weight and body fat in overweight subjects: a systematic review of randomized controlled
589 (98) Besselink, M. G.; van Santvoort, H. C.; Buskens, E.; Boermeester, M. A.; van Goor, H.;
590 Timmerman, H. M.; Nieuwenhuijs, V. B.; Bollen, T. L.; van Ramshorst, B.; Witteman, B. J.; Rosman, C.;
591 Ploeg, R. J.; Brink, M. A.; Schaapherder, A. F.; Dejong, C. H.; Wahab, P. J.; van Laarhoven, C. J.; van der
592 Harst, E.; van Eijck, C. H.; Cuesta, M. A.; Akkermans, L. M.; Gooszen, H. G.; Dutch Acute Pancreatitis
593 Study, G. Probiotic prophylaxis in predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a randomised, double-blind,
595 (99) Bafeta, A.; Koh, M.; Riveros, C.; Ravaud, P. Harms Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials of
596 Interventions Aimed at Modifying Microbiota. Ann Intern Med. 2019, 170 (2), 143-144.
597 (100) Rijkers, G. T.; de Vos, W. M.; Brummer, R. J.; Morelli, L.; Corthier, G.; Marteau, P. Health
27
598 benefits and health claims of probiotics: bridging science and marketing. Br J Nutr. 2011, 106 (9),
599 1291-1296.
600 (101) Saldanha, L. G. US Food and Drug Administration regulations governing label claims for food
601 products, including probiotics. Clin Infect Dis. 2008, 46 Suppl 2, S119-121; discussion S144-151.
602 (102) Zmora, N.; Zilberman-Schapira, G.; Suez, J.; Mor, U.; Dori-Bachash, M.; Bashiardes, S.; Kotler,
603 E.; Zur, M.; Regev-Lehavi, D.; Brik, R. B.; Federici, S.; Cohen, Y.; Linevsky, R.; Rothschild, D.; Moor, A. E.;
604 Ben-Moshe, S.; Harmelin, A.; Itzkovitz, S.; Maharshak, N.; Shibolet, O.; Shapiro, H.; Pevsner-Fischer,
605 M.; Sharon, I.; Halpern, Z.; Segal, E.; Elinav, E. Personalized Gut Mucosal Colonization Resistance to
606 Empiric Probiotics Is Associated with Unique Host and Microbiome Features. Cell. 2018, 174 (6),
608 (103) Suez, J.; Zmora, N.; Zilberman-Schapira, G.; Mor, U.; Dori-Bachash, M.; Bashiardes, S.; Zur, M.;
609 Regev-Lehavi, D.; Ben-Zeev Brik, R.; Federici, S.; Horn, M.; Cohen, Y.; Moor, A. E.; Zeevi, D.; Korem, T.;
610 Kotler, E.; Harmelin, A.; Itzkovitz, S.; Maharshak, N.; Shibolet, O.; Pevsner-Fischer, M.; Shapiro, H.;
611 Sharon, I.; Halpern, Z.; Segal, E.; Elinav, E. Post-Antibiotic Gut Mucosal Microbiome Reconstitution Is
612 Impaired by Probiotics and Improved by Autologous FMT. Cell. 2018, 174 (6), 1406-1423 e1416.
28
614
615 Fig 1. Four components of the intestinal barrier. The microbiological barrier refers to the normal
616 intestinal flora, the interdependence of various strains on each other, and the formation of the host
617 biological defense by beneficial bacteria through biological antagonism and immune function. The
618 chemical barrier refers to the gastric secretion of gastric acid, mucus, mucin, bile, glycoproteins,
619 mucopolysaccharides, various digestive enzymes, lysozymes and other chemicals. The physical barrier
620 consists of a layer of columnar epithelial cells between the intestinal lumen and the inner milieu.
621 Between the epithelial cells are intercellular junctional complexes, including tight junctions, adherens
622 junctions, desmosomes and gap junctions. The immune barrier is composed of iEC, intestinal
623 intraepithelial lymphoid tissue (iIEL), lamina propria lymphocytes (LPLs), Peyer’s patches (PPs),
624 mesenteric lymph nodes, other intestinal tissues and the secretory immunoglobulin A (sIgA) of
29
626
627 Fig 2. Small intestinal bacterial over growth (SIBO) and Toll-like receptor (TLR4) signaling in
628 NAFLD. Bacterial translocation occurs due to the overgrowth of intestinal bacteria or the disruption of
630 patterns (PAMPs) activate TLR4 signaling cascades in KCs that regulate the inflammatory response.
631 TLR4 activation in KCs induces the production of various cytokines, such as IL-1β and TNF-α, that
632 subsequently induce hepatocyte lipid accumulation and apoptosis. Downstream signaling events
30
634
635 Fig 3. Intestinal physical barrier. The protein complexes between intestinal epithelial cells include
636 tight junctions, adherens junctions, desmosomes and gap junctions. Figure adapted from Ulluwishewa
639
31