Characteristics of gut microbiota determine effects of specific probiotics strains in patients with functional constipation
Haohao Zhang,Lijuan Sun,Zhixin Zhao,Yao Zhou,Yuyao Liu,Nannan Zhang,Junya Yan,Shibo Wang,Renlong Li,Jing Zhang,Xueying Wang,Wenjiao Li,Yan Pan,Meixia Wang,Bing Luo,Mengbin Li,Zhihong Sun,Yongxiang Zhao,Yongzhan Nie
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000002826
IF: 6.133
2024-01-01
Chinese Medical Journal
Abstract:To the Editor: Probiotics are a promising treatment modality for functional constipation (FC); however, the factors affecting individual responses to probiotics remain unclear. Growing evidence has identified that there is a strong relationship among the gut microbiota and constipation and related gut–brain axis.[1] The gut microbiota may modulate the gut functions via gut metabolites or trigger the release of gut hormones, such as peptide YY, gastric inhibitory polypeptide, and 5-hydroxytryptamine.[2] In turn, gut hormones affect gut secretion, motility, and sensation through their receptors located on epithelial, enteric, and smooth muscle cells.[2] Based on these findings, exogenous probiotics have been used in patients with constipation; however, few have produced consistent results.[3] In this study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of several specific probiotics strains for constipation, and also examined the potential reasons for the individualized effects of probiotics, which may facilitate interventional decision-making for FC patients. This real-world, retrospective study was approved by the Chinese Ethics Committee for registering clinical trials (ChiECRCT20200151) and registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2000034379). All participants provided written informed consent. Patients diagnosed by an experienced gastroenterologist at Xijing Hospital according to the Rome IV criteria between July 2018 and November 2020 were enrolled. The individuals who met any of the following criteria were excluded: irritable bowel syndrome; mechanical bowel obstruction; megarectum or megacolon; secondary constipation; systemic disease; previous hospitalization for any gastrointestinal or abdominal surgery during the 3 months prior to the trial; and a history of gastrointestinal cancer. Next, the patients who took a multi-probiotics supplement (Lacticaseibacillus paracasei Zhang [1 × 1010 CFU/g], Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis V9 [4 × 1010 CFU/g], and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum P-8 [1 × 1010 CFU/g]) were evaluated for efficacy using the Knowles Eccersley Scott Symptom (KESS) and Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS) scores, then allocated to the responder and non-responder groups according to KESS and BSFS changes. The potential factors affecting the efficacy of probiotics, including gender, age, duration of constipation, body mass index (BMI), constipation type, and diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), were also analyzed. In addition, metagenomic sequencing of fecal samples of FC patients were performed using the BGISEQ500 sequencing platform (BGI-Shenzhen, China). Metagenomic data were annotated by HUMAnN2.0 (http://huttenhower.sph.harvard.edu/humann2). The pan-genomic nucleotide sequence in the samples was compared with ChocoPhIAn database using Bowtie2 (http://huttenhower.sph.harvard.edu/humann2), species abundance in each sample was calculated using MetaPhIAn2 (http://huttenhower.sph.harvard.edu/humann2), according to the previous reported procedures.[4] Raw sequence reads from fecal metagenomic sequencing in this study were uploaded to the NCBI under accession No. PRJNA913982. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS (version 19.0; IBM,Armonk, NY, USA). The results are expressed as the mean ± standard error. Differences between the two groups were assessed using the Mann–Whitney test or χ2 test. Differences were considered statistically significant at a P <0.05. Finally, 104 patients were included according to the inclusion criteria [Supplementary Figure 1, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B696]. Nineteen patients were diagnosed with slow transit constipation (STC), 29 had outlet obstruction constipation (OOC), and 56 had mixed constipation (MC). The overall efficacy of probiotic intervention was 54.8%. Furthermore, we observed that there was no significant difference in efficacy among different constipation subtypes [Figure 1A]. There was also no significant difference in terms of FC symptoms, gender, age, duration of constipation, BMI, and diabetes or IGT at baseline between the responders and non-responders [Supplementary Table 1, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B696]. Compared to the non-responder group, the responder group experienced marked improvement in symptoms after 4 weeks of intervention [Figure 1B]. Similarly, the stool traits were markedly improved in the responder group [Figure 1C].Figure 1: Efficacy rates of probiotics according to constipation subtype and correlations between bacteria and KESS scores. (A) Response rates in patients with different constipation subtypes. (B) KESS scores. (C) BSFS scores. (D) Correlations between bacteria and KESS scores. * P <0.001. BSFS: Bristol Stool Form Scale; KESS: Knowles Eccersley Scott Symptom; MC: Mixed constipation; ns: Not significant; OOC: Outletobstruction constipation; STC: Slow-transit constipation.To determine whether or not the efficacy of probiotics was associated with characteristics of the gut microbiota, 70 fecal samples from 26 patients (18 responders and 8 non-responders) were selected for metagenomic sequencing. Principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) showed no significant difference in microbiota composition between the two groups at baseline [Supplementary Figure 2A, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B696]; however, the Shannon and S index were higher in the non-responder group than the responder group, indicating a higher degree of microbiota diversity in the non-responder group [Supplementary Figure 2B,C, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B696]. There was no significant difference in the abundances of the bacteria at the phylum level between the two groups [Supplementary Figure 2D, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B696]. After a 4-week probiotics administration, Eggerthella unclassified, Bifidobacterium pseudocatenulatum, and 13 other bacterial species differed in abundance between the two groups (P <0.05) [Supplementary Figure 3, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B696]. Furthermore, correlation analysis showed that the abundances of Bacteroides nordii and Streptococcus infantis were significantly positively correlated with KESS scores [Figure 1D]. Unexpectedly, we found that the network was more complicated in non-responders compared to responders. After the intervention, the complexity decreased in the two groups, but the network remained highly complex in the non-responder group, implying a stable and largely undisturbed microenvironment [Supplementary Figure 4, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B696]. In this study, the efficacy of the multi-strain probiotics was approximately 54.8% in patients with FC, which is consistent with another study.[5] We found that the abundances of Bacteroides nordii and Streptococcus infantis were positively related to the constipation symptoms, thus biological functions of these species in FC deserve further investigation. Interestingly, we found that the co-occurrence network was more complicated in non-responders, which appeared to be inconsistent with a more complicated network and was generally considered to reflect a healthier intestinal microecology. This might be some pathogenic or chronic intestinal inflammation-related bacteria responsible for the complex microecosystem, leading to a more complex co-occurrence network. In conclusion, these specified multi-probiotics could effectively alleviate the syndrome of FC. A more complicated co-occurrence network of gut microbiota and high abundance of Bacteroides nordii and Streptococcus infantis may be the major factors predicting a lack of response to probiotic interventions. These results may provide novel information to help clinicians make appropriate treatment decisions. Funding Funding for this study came from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 81900483 and 81730016) and the National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, Xi'an, China (No. 2015BAI13B07). Conflicts of interest None.