DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Use of Germ-Free Animal Models in Microbiota-Related Research

  • Al-Asmakh, Maha (Department of Health Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University) ;
  • Zadjali, Fahad (College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University)
  • 투고 : 2015.01.14
  • 심사 : 2015.06.02
  • 발행 : 2015.10.28

초록

The large intestine is a home for trillions of microbiota, which confer many benefits on the host, including production of vitamins, absorption of nutrients, pathogen displacement, and development of the immune system. For several decades, germ-free animals have been used to study the interaction between the host and its microbiota. This minireview describes the technical aspects for establishing and maintaining germ-free animals and highlights the advantages and disadvantages for germ-free animals as experimental models.

키워드

Introduction

Accumulating evidence reveals that the gut microbiota play a major role in promoting health, as a result of which it is often referred to as the “forgotten organ” [20] These microbiota are key factors in maintaining homeostasis, with functions affecting virtually every organ in the body, such as the regulation of bone mass [24], brain development and behavior [1, 5, 7], hepatic function [4], and aspects of adipose tissues [18] and the cardiovascular system [27]. In mammals, microbial colonization starts in utero by the maternal microbiota and is influenced thereafter by the mode of birth and type of infant feeding and exposure to antibiotics [21, 22]. Consequently, the microbiota are heterogeneous and unstable until approximately 2–4 years of age, when it becomes more stable and begins to resemble the adult microbiota [6].

Germ-free (GF) animals provide an invaluable experimental tool for examining interactions between a host and its microbiota. The term germ-free (axenic) refers to an animal demonstrably free from microbes, including bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa, and parasites, throughout its lifetime [29, 30]. GF animals selectively colonized with one or more bacterial species are referred to as gnotobiotic [8, 25] (a term sometimes used synonymously with GF). This term is derived from the Greek “gnotos,” meaning known, and “bios” which means life [3, 29].

 

Historical Aspects of GF Experimentation

The concept of a germ-free animal was recognized more than a century ago by Louis Pasteur (1885), although he concluded that bacteria-free existence is impossible. Ten years later in 1895, Nuttle and Thierfelder at Berlin University produced the first GF animals (guinea pigs), which survived for as long as 13 days. However, owing to the lack of knowledge concerning nutrition, it took 50 more years until the first GF rat colonies were established in the late 1940s. Subsequently, the first GF mice were successfully developed by Pleasants in 1959 [28-30].

At first, GF animals were housed in stainless steel isolators (Fig.1) designed by Professor Bengt Erik Gustafsson (1959), a pioneer in the design of equipment and procedures for producing GF rats [12]. However, these stainless steel isolators are very heavy, expensive, limit the field of view and are not flexible. Therefore, flexible plastic isolators are more commonly used now to house GF animals [3] (Fig.2).

Fig. 1.Gustafsson steel isolator.

Fig. 2.Composition of the plastic isolator.

 

Isolator Technology

Isolators provide physical barriers that allow creation of a sterile environment. These devices have an air supply, air inlet and outlet, transfer port, and arm-length gloves, as well as a special tank filled with disinfectant and used for the transfer of mice in and out (Figs.1 and 2). Maintaining an isolator is very laborious work and requires special training. All manipulation of mice and supplies occurs inside the isolator through gloves and sleeves attached to the isolator walls. In terms of potential contamination, the gloves are most vulnerable, and the most common cause of contaminations are due to holes in the gloves.

Bedding, food, water, and equipment, including cages, must first be sterilized (autoclaved) and are then put into the isolator through the so-called sterile lock. Sterilization of entire steel isolators is accomplished by autoclaving the whole isolator, as well as with portable vacuum and steam equipment. In the case of plastic isolators, which cannot tolerate the heat of steam sterilization, sterilization is accomplished with germicidal vapor (2% peracetic acid and chlorine dioxide). Air is sterilized upon entry and exhaust by mechanical filtration under positive pressure. The transfer of animals in and out of the isolator is usually carried out via autoclave jars (Fig.3).

Fig. 3.Transfer of mice from inside the isolator. The mouse is placed in an autoclaved glass jar and transferred through a sterilized lock into the tank filled with disinfectant.

Colony maintenance and experimentation using a GF environment is technically challenging. Germ-free animals can be contaminated very easily. The common practice is to separate multiple mouse strains and multiple inoculation experimental groups in separate isolators [3], altogether increasing the cost and space for such experimentation. Transfer of GF mice from isolators to positive-pressure isocages has recently been shown to be cost and spaceeffective for short-term experiments [13]. The use of a positive-pressure isocage for long-term maintenance of GF mice needs further optimization.

 

Establishment of GF mice

Establishment of new strains of GF mice requires that the fetus remains sterile in the uterus. The pups are most commonly delivered by sterile Caesarean section and then transferred while still in the uterine sac to a GF foster mother (Fig.4). Thereafter, it is relatively straightforward to maintain and breed colonies of GF mice in isolators with free access to autoclaved food and water [14, 25] It is not advisable to use the first generation of GF mice for experiments, since their mother was not GF, and virus, bacteria, and bacterial metabolites can be transmitted transplacentally from the mother to the fetus. The GF status of the mice should be monitored regularly by culturing fecal samples for aerobic/anaerobic bacteria and fungi and by 16S PCR testing for bacteria that cannot be cultured [25].

Fig. 4.Establishment of GF mice by Caesarian section. (A) The uterine sac is removed and clamped together at the top of each horn and at the base close to the cervix. (B) The uterine sac is placed in a glass jar containing desinfectant. (C) The uterine sac is transfered to the isolator, where it is opened, and the pups are removed, cleaned, and stimulated to breath. (D) The pups are introduced to the GF foster mother.

 

Establishment of the Control Group for GF Mice

GF and gnotobiotic mice are compared to the specific pathogen-free (SPF) animals, which are free from known pathogens that cause clinical or subclinical infections that can bias research findings [25]. Although SPF mice are usually housed in special rooms, for reliable comparison they should be housed in the same environment as the GF mice (i.e., also in isolators), but this is seldom done because isolators are too expensive.

SPF mice should be screened and tested for pathogens, as recommended by the Federation of Laboratory Animal Science Associations [19]. It is important to note that SPF animals are normally colonized with commensal bacteria, but the diversity and type of colonization are rarely known with any accuracy. To achieve balanced and identified colonization, commercial breeders and animal facilities tend to expose SPF mice to the modified Schaedler flora, containing eight species of bacteria, five belonging to the genera Clostridium, Eubacterium, and Bacteroides; one a spirochete from the Flexistipes group (Mucispirillum schaederli); and two Lactobacillus species [25].

 

Anatomical and Physiological Characteristics of GF mice

If their diet is supplemented with vitamins, including K and B, GF animals are viable and healthy. However, these animals show a number of important developmental and physiological differences in comparison with SPF animals. For example, the cecum is enlarged by 4-8-fold, due to the accumulation of mucus and undigested fibers. This is in contrast to other GF animals, including dogs, pigs, sheep, goats, and chickens, which due to the anatomy of the junction between their small and large intestines show little or no such enlargement. When body weight is corrected for cecal weight, adult GF rodents weigh less than their SPF counterparts [29].

Moreover, the small intestine of GF rodents is less developed, with a considerably smaller surface area, slower peristalsis, irregular villi, and reduced renewal of epithelial cells. Consequently, the ability of GF animals to utilize nutrients is compromised. Interestingly, GF rats live longer and develop spontaneous cancers less frequently than do SPF rats [29] GF animals are also more prone to infections and have altered immune systems. Additional differences between SPF and GF mice are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.Anatomical and physiological features of germ-free mice that differ from those of specific-pathogen-free and wild-type mice [15].

 

Conclusions: Advantages and Disadvantages for GF Mice as Experimental Models

Murine models provide excellent tools to study microbiota-associated human diseases. Germ-free animal models have been used to explore host-microbiota interactions in entire fields, including neurogastroenterology [1, 7, 16, 17], cardiology [27], reproductive biology [2, 23], lipid metabolism [18], and bone homeostasis [24]. GF and gnotobiotic mice are valuable experimental tools for examining host-microbe interactions, since monocolonization of single bacteria is achievable. Furthermore, genetically modified mice can be made germ-free in order to study interactions between any particular gene and the microbiota. Inoculation of human gut microbiota into GF mice, humanized gnotobiotic models, allows recapitalization of the human microbiota phylogenetic composition [9]. These models provide powerful tool in understanding the cause and effect of gut microbiota in the human-like system.

The major questions concerning host-microbe interactions include how colonies of microbiota are established and maintained, how these affect their host, how the host shapes the populations of microbiota, and how the microbiota influence the development of diseases. However, information obtained by comparing GF and SPF mice cannot be directly applied to humans, and it often remains uncertain whether a disruption in the microbiota associated with a disease in humans is a cause, contributing factor, or merely a consequence of the disease state. Although such comparisons provide hints concerning the pathogenesis of diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and multiple sclerosis, the underlying mechanisms remain unknown and, as a result, GF findings can seldom be readily translated into treatments and/or prevention.

Several factors could contribute to this failure. One caveat is that several bacterial species that colonize the murine gut are not found in humans. Furthermore, the distinct physiology and anatomy (including skin, fur, orapharyneal structures, and compartmentalization of the GIT) and behavior (e.g., coprophagia) of mice will undoubtedly influence microbial communities [8, 10, 11, 15, 26].

Despite these pitfalls, the GF mouse remains the most powerful model system for studying host-microbe interactions.

참고문헌

  1. Al-Asmakh M, Anuar F, Zadjali F, Rafter J, Pettersson S. 2012. Gut microbial communities modulating brain development and function. Gut Microbes 3: 366-373. https://doi.org/10.4161/gmic.21287
  2. Al-Asmakh M, Stukenborg JB, Reda A, Anuar F, Strand ML, Hedin L, et al. 2014. The gut microbiota and developmental programming of the testis in mice. PLoS One 9: e103809. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103809
  3. Arvidsson C, Hallén A, Bäckhed F. 2012. Generating and analyzing germ-free mice. Curr. Protoc. Mouse Biol. 2: 307-316.
  4. Bjorkholm B, Bok CM, Lundin A, Rafter J, Hibberd ML, Pettersson S. 2009. Intestinal microbiota regulate xenobiotic metabolism in the liver. PLoS One 4: e6958. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006958
  5. Braniste V, Al-Asmakh M, Kowal C, Anuar F, Abbaspour A, Toth M, et al. 2014. The gut microbiota influences bloodbrain barrier permeability in mice. Sci. Transl. Med. 6: 263ra158. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3009759
  6. Brown K, DeCoffe D, Molcan E, Gibson DL. 2012. Dietinduced dysbiosis of the intestinal microbiota and the effects on immunity and disease. Nutrients 4: 1095-1119. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu4081095
  7. Diaz Heijtz R, Wang S, Anuar F, Qian Y, Bjorkholm B, Samuelsson A, et al. 2011. Normal gut microbiota modulates brain development and behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108: 3047-3052. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010529108
  8. Fritz JV, Desai MS, Shah P, Schneider JG, Wilmes P. 2013. From meta-omics to causality: experimental models for human microbiome research. Microbiome 1: 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-2618-1-14
  9. Goodman AL, Kallstrom G, Faith JJ, Reyes A, Moore A, Dantas G, Gordon JI. 2011. Extensive personal human gut microbiota culture collections characterized and manipulated in gnotobiotic mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108: 6252-6257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102938108
  10. Gootenberg DB, Turnbaugh PJ. 2011. Companion animals symposium: humanized animal models of the microbiome. J. Anim. Sci. 89: 1531-1537. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3371
  11. Gordon HA, Pesti L. 1971. The gnotobiotic animal as a tool in the study of host microbial relationships. Bacteriol. Rev. 35: 390-429.
  12. Gustafsson BE. 1959. Lightweight stainless steel systems for rearing germfree animals. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 78: 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1959.tb53092.x
  13. Hecht G, Bar-Nathan C, Milite G, Alon I, Moshe Y, Greenfeld L, et al. 2014. A simple cage-autonomous method for the maintenance of the barrier status of germ-free mice during experimentation. Lab. Anim. 48: 292-297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023677214544728
  14. Inzunza J, Midtvedt T, Fartoo M, Norin E, Osterlund E, Persson AK, Ahrlund-Richter L. 2005. Germfree status of mice obtained by embryo transfer in an isolator environment. Lab. Anim. 39: 421-427. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367705774286439
  15. Kostic AD, Howitt MR, Garrett WS. 2013. Exploring hostmicrobiota interactions in animal models and humans. Genes Dev. 27: 701-718. https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.212522.112
  16. McVey Neufeld KA, Perez-Burgos A, Mao YK, Bienenstock J, Kunze WA. 2015. The gut microbiome restores intrinsic and extrinsic nerve function in germ-free mice accompanied by changes in calbindin. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 27: 627-636. https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.12534
  17. Neufeld KM, Kang N, Bienenstock J, Foster JA. 2011. Reduced anxiety-like behavior and central neurochemical change in germ-free mice. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 23: 255-264, e119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2982.2010.01620.x
  18. Nicholson JK, Holmes E, Kinross J, Burcelin R, Gibson G, Jia W, Pettersson S. 2012. Host-gut microbiota metabolic interactions. Science 336: 1262-1267. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1223813
  19. Nicklas W, Baneux P, Boot R, Decelle T, Deeny AA, Fumanelli M, et al. 2002. Recommendations for the health monitoring of rodent and rabbit colonies in breeding and experimental units. Lab. Anim. 36: 20-42. https://doi.org/10.1258/0023677021911740
  20. O'Hara AM, Shanahan F. 2006. The gut flora as a forgotten organ. EMBO Rep. 7: 688-693. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400731
  21. Rautava S, Luoto R, Salminen S, Isolauri E. 2012. Microbial contact during pregnancy, intestinal colonization and human disease. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 9: 565-576. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2012.144
  22. Sanz Y. 2011. Gut microbiota and probiotics in maternal and infant health. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 94: 2000S-2005S. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.110.001172
  23. Shimizu K, Muranaka Y, Fujimura R, Ishida H, Tazume S, Shimamura T. 1998. Normalization of reproductive function in germfree mice following bacterial contamination. Exp. Anim. 47: 151-158. https://doi.org/10.1538/expanim.47.151
  24. Sjogren K, Engdahl C, Henning P, Lerner UH, Tremaroli V, Lagerquist MK, et al. 2012. The gut microbiota regulates bone mass in mice. J. Bone Miner. Res. 27: 1357-1367. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.1588
  25. Smith K, McCoy KD, Macpherson AJ. 2007. Use of axenic animals in studying the adaptation of mammals to their commensal intestinal microbiota. Semin. Immunol. 19: 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smim.2006.10.002
  26. Sommer F, Backhed F. 2013. The gut microbiota--masters of host development and physiology. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 11: 227-238. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2974
  27. Stepankova R, Tonar Z, Bartova J, Nedorost L, Rossman P, Poledne R, et al. 2010. Absence of microbiota (germ-free conditions) accelerates the atherosclerosis in ApoE-deficient mice fed standard low cholesterol diet. J. Atheroscler. Thromb. 17: 796-804. https://doi.org/10.5551/jat.3285
  28. Wostmann BS. 1981. The germfree animal in nutritional studies. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 1: 257-279. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nu.01.070181.001353
  29. Wostmann BS. 1996. Germfree and Gnotobiotic Animal Models: Background and Applications, CRC Press FL, USA.
  30. Yi P, Li L. 2012. The germfree murine animal: an important animal model for research on the relationship between gut microbiota and the host. Vet. Microbiol. 157: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2011.10.024

피인용 문헌

  1. Regulation of energy balance by a gut-brain axis and involvement of the gut microbiota vol.73, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-015-2083-z
  2. Biodiversity, the Human Microbiome and Mental Health: Moving toward a New Clinical Ecology for the 21st Century? vol.2016, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2718275
  3. Bugging inflammation: role of the gut microbiota vol.5, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1038/cti.2016.12
  4. Importance of gut microbiota for the health and disease of dogs and cats vol.6, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2016-0032
  5. Dissecting the Interplay Between Intestinal Microbiota and Host Immunity in Health and Disease: Lessons Learned from Germfree and Gnotobiotic Animal Models vol.6, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1556/1886.2016.00036
  6. Gut Microbiome and Bone: to Build, Destroy, or Both? vol.15, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-017-0382-z
  7. Probiotics, gut microbiota, and their influence on host health and disease vol.61, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.201600240
  8. Emerging pathogenic links between microbiota and the gut–lung axis vol.15, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2016.142
  9. Gut instincts: microbiota as a key regulator of brain development, ageing and neurodegeneration : Microbiota-gut-brain axis across the lifespan vol.595, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1113/jp273106
  10. Microbial metabolites in health and disease: Navigating the unknown in search of function vol.292, pp.21, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.r116.752899
  11. Intestinal microbiota contributes to colonic epithelial changes in simulated microgravity mouse model vol.31, pp.8, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.201700034r
  12. The Human Microbiome and Obesity: Moving beyond Associations vol.22, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2017.10.005
  13. Stress & the gut-brain axis: Regulation by the microbiome vol.7, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ynstr.2017.03.001
  14. The First Microbial Colonizers of the Human Gut: Composition, Activities, and Health Implications of the Infant Gut Microbiota vol.81, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1128/mmbr.00036-17
  15. The Host Microbiota Contributes to Early Protection Against Lung Colonization by Mycobacterium tuberculosis vol.9, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.02656
  16. β-Defensins: Farming the Microbiome for Homeostasis and Health vol.9, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.03072
  17. Comparative Evaluation of Microbiota Engraftment Following Fecal Microbiota Transfer in Mice Models: Age, Kinetic and Microbial Status Matter vol.9, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.03289
  18. The Gut-Brain Axis, the Human Gut Microbiota and Their Integration in the Development of Obesity vol.9, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.00900
  19. Mouse Microbiota Models: Comparing Germ-Free Mice and Antibiotics Treatment as Tools for Modifying Gut Bacteria vol.9, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01534
  20. Microbiome in the Gut-Skin Axis in Atopic Dermatitis vol.10, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4168/aair.2018.10.4.354
  21. Intestinal dysbiosis activates renal renin-angiotensin system contributing to incipient diabetic nephropathy vol.15, pp.8, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.25543
  22. Early microbiota, antibiotics and health vol.75, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-017-2670-2
  23. Invited review: Genetic and genomic mouse models for livestock research vol.61, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-61-87-2018
  24. Sjögren-Like Lacrimal Keratoconjunctivitis in Germ-Free Mice vol.19, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19020565
  25. Updating osteoimmunology: regulation of bone cells by innate and adaptive immunity vol.14, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2017.213
  26. The role of the gut microbiota on animal model reproducibility vol.1, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/ame2.12022
  27. Protective role of commensal bacteria in Sjögren Syndrome vol.93, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaut.2018.06.004
  28. Disentangling Host-Microbiota Regulation of Lipid Secretion by Enterocytes: Insights from Commensals Lactobacillus paracasei and Escherichia coli vol.9, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01493-18
  29. ‘Cyclical Bias’ in Microbiome Research Revealed by A Portable Germ-Free Housing System Using Nested Isolation vol.8, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20742-1
  30. AIEC infection triggers modification of gut microbiota composition in genetically predisposed mice, contributing to intestinal inflammation vol.8, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30055-y
  31. The role of the lung microbiota and the gut–lung axis in respiratory infectious diseases vol.20, pp.12, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/cmi.12966
  32. Microbiota modulation by eating patterns and diet composition: impact on food intake vol.315, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00037.2018
  33. You are what you eat: diet, health and the gut microbiota vol.16, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-018-0061-2
  34. Making Sense of … the Microbiome in Psychiatry vol.22, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1093/ijnp/pyy067
  35. Investigation of the Effects of Microbiota on Exercise Physiological Adaption, Performance, and Energy Utilization Using a Gnotobiotic Animal Model vol.10, pp.None, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01906
  36. The Preterm Gut Microbiota: An Inconspicuous Challenge in Nutritional Neonatal Care vol.9, pp.None, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2019.00085
  37. Intestinal Sensing by Gut Microbiota: Targeting Gut Peptides vol.10, pp.None, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2019.00082
  38. The Interplay between Immunity and Microbiota at Intestinal Immunological Niche: The Case of Cancer vol.20, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20030501
  39. Microbes and the Mind: How Bacteria Shape Affect, Neurological Processes, Cognition, Social Relationships, Development, and Pathology vol.14, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618809379
  40. Gnotobiotics: Past, present and future vol.53, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1177/0023677219836715
  41. Metabolic Fate and Distribution of 2´‐Fucosyllactose: Direct Influence on Gut Microbial Activity but not on Brain vol.63, pp.13, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.201900035
  42. Morphine tolerance is attenuated in germfree mice and reversed by probiotics, implicating the role of gut microbiome vol.116, pp.27, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1901182116
  43. New system to examine the activity and water and food intake of germ-free mice in a sealed positive-pressure cage vol.5, pp.8, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02176
  44. The PPAR-microbiota-metabolic organ trilogy to fine‐tune physiology vol.33, pp.9, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.201802681rr
  45. Lactobacillus frumentiimproves antioxidant capacityvianitric oxide synthase 1 in intestinal epithelial cells vol.33, pp.10, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.201900253rr
  46. The Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis vol.99, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00018.2018
  47. Bone marrow CX3CR1+ mononuclear cells relay a systemic microbiota signal to control hematopoietic progenitors in mice vol.134, pp.16, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2019000495
  48. Exploring the emerging role of the microbiome in cancer immunotherapy vol.7, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40425-019-0574-4
  49. A Central Role for Lipocalin-2 in the Adaptation to Short-Bowel Syndrome Through Down-Regulation of IL22 in Mice vol.10, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmgh.2020.04.006
  50. Germ-free mice exhibit profound gut microbiota-dependent alterations of intestinal endocannabinoidome signaling vol.61, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1194/jlr.ra119000424
  51. Prevotella Induces the Production of Th17 Cells in the Colon of Mice vol.2020, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9607328
  52. Past, Present, and Future of Gastrointestinal Microbiota Research in Cats vol.11, pp.None, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01661
  53. Commentary: Microbial panaceas: does development have the answer? – reflections on Cowan, Dinan, & Cryan (2020) vol.61, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13192
  54. The role of the microbiota in sedentary lifestyle disorders and ageing: lessons from the animal kingdom vol.287, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.13021
  55. Metabolic endotoxemia and cardiovascular disease: A systematic review about potential roles of prebiotics and probiotics vol.47, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1681.13250
  56. How microbiota shape microglial phenotypes and epigenetics vol.68, pp.8, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/glia.23822
  57. Effects of gut microbiota on leptin expression and body weight are lessened by high-fat diet in mice vol.124, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007114520001117
  58. Germ-Free Conditions Modulate Host Purine Metabolism, Exacerbating Adenine-Induced Kidney Damage vol.12, pp.9, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins12090547
  59. The tumor organismal environment: Role in tumor development and cancer immunotherapy vol.65, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.12.021
  60. Enhanced modulation of gut microbial dynamics affecting body weight in birds triggered by natural growth promoters administered in conventional feed vol.27, pp.10, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.06.027
  61. The Microbiota and Gut-Related Disorders: Insights from Animal Models vol.9, pp.11, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/cells9112401
  62. Modulation of the immune response and metabolism in germ-free rats colonized by the probiotic Lactobacillus salivarius LI01 vol.105, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-021-11099-z
  63. Tumor-Associated Microbiome: Where Do We Stand? vol.22, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22031446
  64. Salmonella versus the Microbiome vol.85, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1128/mmbr.00027-19
  65. Application of germ-free NOD-scid IL2rgnull mice as a humanized model for tumor microbiome precision medicine vol.64, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11427-020-1876-1
  66. Oral-Gut Microbiome Axis in Gastrointestinal Disease and Cancer vol.13, pp.7, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13071748
  67. Targeting the gut-liver-immune axis to treat cirrhosis vol.70, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2020-320786
  68. Oral-Gut Microbiome Axis in Gastrointestinal Disease and Cancer vol.13, pp.9, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13092124
  69. Human Gut Microbiome and Liver Diseases: From Correlation to Causation vol.9, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9051017
  70. Effects of Pediococcus pentosaceus LI05 on immunity and metabolism in germ-free rats vol.12, pp.11, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1039/d0fo02530e
  71. Melatonin in Early Nutrition: Long-Term Effects on Cardiovascular System vol.22, pp.13, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22136809
  72. Designer fibre meals sway human gut microbes vol.595, pp.7865, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01601-y
  73. Deposition of resistant bacteria and resistome through FMT in germ‐free piglets vol.73, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/lam.13490
  74. Microbiota’s Role in Diet-Driven Alterations in Food Intake: Satiety, Energy Balance, and Reward vol.13, pp.9, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13093067
  75. Growth and Development in Preterm Infants: What is The Long-Term Risk? vol.5, pp.sp1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.20473/amnt.v5i1sp.2021.27-33
  76. The Search for the Elixir of Life: On the Therapeutic Potential of Alkaline Reduced Water in Metabolic Syndromes vol.9, pp.11, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9111876
  77. EEG Changes Related to Gut Dysbiosis in Diabetes-Review vol.11, pp.24, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/app112411871