Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Must- Read Articles
      • "Best of" Collection
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Must- Read Articles
      • "Best of" Collection
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Minireview

The Human Microbiome and Cancer

Seesandra V. Rajagopala, Sanjay Vashee, Lauren M. Oldfield, Yo Suzuki, J. Craig Venter, Amalio Telenti and Karen E. Nelson
Seesandra V. Rajagopala
1J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), Rockville, Maryland.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sanjay Vashee
1J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), Rockville, Maryland.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lauren M. Oldfield
1J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), Rockville, Maryland.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yo Suzuki
1J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), Rockville, Maryland.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Craig Venter
1J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), Rockville, Maryland.
2Human Longevity, Inc., San Diego, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amalio Telenti
1J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), Rockville, Maryland.
2Human Longevity, Inc., San Diego, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karen E. Nelson
1J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), Rockville, Maryland.
2Human Longevity, Inc., San Diego, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Kenelson@jcvi.org
DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-16-0249 Published April 2017
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Recent scientific advances have significantly contributed to our understanding of the complex connection between the microbiome and cancer. Our bodies are continuously exposed to microbial cells, both resident and transient, as well as their byproducts, including toxic metabolites. Circulation of toxic metabolites may contribute to cancer onset or progression at locations distant from where a particular microbe resides. Moreover, microbes may migrate to other locations in the human body and become associated with tumor development. Several case–control metagenomics studies suggest that dysbiosis in the commensal microbiota is also associated with inflammatory disorders and various cancer types throughout the body. Although the microbiome influences carcinogenesis through mechanisms independent of inflammation and immune system, the most recognizable link is between the microbiome and cancer via the immune system, as the resident microbiota plays an essential role in activating, training, and modulating the host immune response. Immunologic dysregulation is likely to provide mechanistic explanations as to how our microbiome influences cancer development and cancer therapies. In this review, we discuss recent developments in understanding the human gut microbiome's relationship with cancer and the feasibility of developing novel cancer diagnostics based on microbiome profiles. Cancer Prev Res; 10(4); 226–34. ©2017 AACR.

An Overview of the Human Microbiome, Immunity, and Cancer

Obtaining a comprehensive view of the microbial ecosystems that are associated with the human body (the human microbiome) has become possible with advances in culture-independent “omics” analyses using next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques (1, 2). Several studies have suggested a correlation between our microbiome and various diseases, including metabolic disorders, gastrointestinal complexities, and infectious diseases (3–6), and to date, thousands of articles focused on the human microbiome in health and disease conditions have been published. The estimated trillions of microbes that inhabit the human body establish a beneficial relationship with the host, but it is clear that dysbiotic relationships can develop, some of which are thought to result in the development of inflammatory diseases and cancers. Several animal models have provided insight on possible mechanisms for microbial cancer triggers, although the situation is complex as both tumor-promoting and antitumor effects have been observed in the presence or absence of particular microbial species (7–11). The microbiota may also induce carcinogenesis through the release of genotoxins that can damage host DNA. This can directly promote carcinogenesis. Bacterial toxins and tumor-promoting metabolites may also lead to chronic inflammation, which in turn may trigger damage to host cells and tissue linings (12, 13). In addition, immunologic dysregulation in response to the resident microbiome may lead to tumor growth (7). There is also an increasing understanding of the composition of the human virome (viruses and bacteriophages), particularly in the gut and oral cavity (14–17). The normal gut virome is proposed to have a role in protective immunity during gut inflammation (18).

The variability of microbial populations and physiologic environments at different sites of the human body suggests that microbial mechanisms and species that are involved in cancer onset will also vary depending on the location. Impaired microbiota can facilitate carcinogenesis through a variety of mechanisms that have been reported in the literature (12, 13). This minireview focuses on cancers promoted by pathogens and immune system–mediated mechanisms.

Cancers triggered or promoted by specific pathogens

Pathogens promote cancer development through well-described genetic mechanisms (13). There are 10 specific biological agents that have been designated by the International Agency for Cancer Research as carcinogenic to humans (19). One of them, Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) colonizes the gastric mucosa of half of the world's population (20) and induces chronic gastric inflammation, which can progress toward gastric carcinoma. Although only about 1% to 3% of H. pylori–colonized individuals develop gastric cancer, it substantially contributes to global cancer mortality (21–23). The mechanism by which H. pylori induces onset of gastric cancer is largely attributed to the presence of cytotoxin-associated gene A (CagA) and secretion of virulence factors, such as VacA, urease, and NapA2, to promote chronic inflammation, oxidative stress, and host DNA damage, which can contribute to carcinogenesis (24–26). The pathogen uses the type IV secretion system to translocate CagA to gastric epithelial cells, which aberrantly modulates β-catenin to increase propensity for gastric cancer (27) (Fig. 1A). Chronic bacterial infections can also promote host genetic instability (28). For example, mice chronically infected with H. pylori show a 4-fold increase in mutation frequency compared with uninfected mice (29). However, studies in germ-free mice have shown that H. pylori alone is less likely to induce gastric cancer. The germ-free mice co-colonized with complex intestinal flora and H. pylori synergistically promote invasive gastrointestinal intraepithelial neoplasia (GIN) in 80% of mice, whereas only 10% of H. pylori only–colonized males developed GIN, with less severe gastric lesions and significantly delayed onset of GIN (30). The mice co-colonized with complex intestinal flora and H. pylori developed more severe gastric pathology, and the mice co-colonized with H. pylori and restricted altered Schaedler flora (Clostridium species, Lactobacillus murinus, and Bacteriodes species) were only slightly less severe (31). Interestingly H. pylori infection is also associated with decreased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma, highlighting the complexity of microbial effects on tissue-specific carcinogenesis (32).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Mechanisms by which microbes promote carcinogenesis. A, Microbes inject effectors into the host cells. These effectors modulate the Wnt/β-catenin signaling by activating β-catenin. For example, H. pylori effector protein CagA interacts with E-cadherin and disassociates the E-cadherin/β-catenin protein complex, which leads to increased accumulation of cytoplasmic and nuclear β-catenin. β-Catenin complexes with TCF/LEF transcription factors and activates target gene expression. F. nucleatum modulates β-catenin signaling via its FadA protein. Aberrant β-catenin signaling is associated with tumorigenesis and progression. Prolonged exposure to H. pylori protein VacA prevents autophagy. The interaction between F. nucleatum Fap2 protein and host polysaccharide (Gal-GalNAc) mediates F. nucleatum colonization in colorectal cancer. F. nucleatum mediates tumor-immune evasion via TIGIT. The Fap2 protein secreted by F. nucleatum interacts with TIGIT and inhibits natural killer (NK) cell–mediated immunosurveillance of cancer. B, Several human viruses, including HPV, HBV, HCV, HTLV, EBV, and KSHV, are known to cause various cancers. They encode oncoproteins and pathways that have been shown to transform nonpermissive cell types and induce tumors in animal models. During active infection and latent phase, these cancer-causing viruses modify epigenetic programs and impair DNA repair mechanisms in various ways. These subversions lead to host genome instability, a hallmark of carcinogenesis. C, Proinflammatory signaling, as a result of barrier failure, induces genomic instability and chronic inflammation, hallmarks for carcinogenesis. D, Dysbiosis and altered microbiota–host interaction can induce carcinogenesis through various mechanisms; increased bacterial translocation and immune dysregulation are shown as examples. Microorganism-associated molecular patterns (MAMP) are recognized by TLRs in several cell types. Activation of TLRs by MAMPs and other microbial products contributes to carcinogenesis. For example, TLR4, the receptor for LPS component of the Gram-negative bacterial cell wall, promotes hepatocellular and pancreatic cancer colon cancer. TLR-induced NF-κB and STAT3 activation are key cancer-promoting signaling pathways. Microbiota-induced immune dysregulation can initiate inflammasomes-associated immune response and TLR-activated autophagy.

Metagenomics and transcriptomics studies provide insights into the relationship between Fusobacterium nucleatum (F. nucleatum) and colorectal cancer. Several case–control human cohort studies found higher abundance of Fusobacterium spp. in colorectal adenomas compared with controls (33, 34). F. nucleatum introduction to a mouse model of intestinal tumorigenesis accelerated tumor development and modulated the tumor microenvironment through an NF-κB–driven proinflammatory response without inducing more widespread inflammation (35). Rubinstein and colleagues demonstrated that F. nucleatum promotes colorectal cancer by modulating E-cadherin/β-catenin signaling via its FadA protein (Fig. 1A; ref. 36), FadA binding to E-cadherin inhibits the latter's tumor-suppressive activity. Conversely, inhibition of FadA binding to E-cadherin using an inhibitory peptide abolishes the host inflammatory response and tumor growth (36). A recent study by Abed and colleagues investigated mechanisms underlying fusobacterial attachment to and invasion of colonic adenomas and colorectal cancer (37). The investigators observed that a host polysaccharide, Gal-GalNAc, is overexpressed in colorectal cancer and readily recognized by fusobacterial protein Fap2 to mediate F. nucleatum attachment to colorectal cancer (37) (Fig. 1A). F. nucleatum also mediates tumor-immune evasion via the T-cell immunoreceptor with Ig and ITIM domains (TIGIT). The Fap2 proteins, secreted by F. nucleatum, interact with TIGIT and inhibit the natural killer cell-mediated immunosurveillance of cancer (Fig. 1A; ref. 78).

Cancers promoted by viruses

The composition and role of the human virome in health is not well understood. However, there are viruses that are known to cause various cancers, some of which are sufficiently prevalent in the population to be considered part of the human virome. Recognized associations include human papillomaviruses (HPV) causing cervical carcinoma, hepatitis B (HBV) and C viruses (HCV) being the causative agents of hepatocellular carcinomas, human T-cell leukemia virus-1 (HTLV) being involved in T-cell leukemia, Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) being involved in B-cell lymphoproliferative diseases and nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus (KSHV) being the etiologic factor for Kaposi sarcoma and primary effusion lymphomas (38–40). Human polyomaviruses such as Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCV) and Simian Virus 40 (SV40) are implicated in Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) and mesothelioma, respectively (38, 39). In addition, MCV, which is highly prevalent virus in the general population, can lead to an aggressive form of skin cancer in the elderly and immunosuppressed individuals (41). These viruses contributed to about 1.3 million new cancer cases worldwide in 2008, demonstrating the importance of fully understanding their biology (19). The mechanisms by which these viruses cause cancer are quite complex. They encode oncoproteins and pathways that have been shown to transform nonpermissive cell types and induce tumors in animal models (38–40). During active infection, these cancer-causing viruses exploit host cell machinery to perform their own replication, including altering cellular structures, manipulating signaling pathways, modifying epigenetic programs, and impairing DNA repair mechanisms in various ways. Together, these subversions ultimately lead to genome instability, a hallmark of cancer (Fig. 1B; ref. 39). There is the added complication in that many of these viruses either integrate into the host genome (HPV, HTLV-1, and HBV among others) or are maintained as latent episomal genomes (EBV and KSHV), resulting in lifetime infections. For HPV, integration of its genome into the host is a central mechanism of oncogenesis because it results in the overexpression of the viral E6 and E7 genes, which synergistically act to immortalize host cells (38). The MCV genome is clonally integrated in the majority of MCC tumors and its regulatory small T antigen acts as a potent oncogene capable of inducing cell transformation (42, 43). For the latent viruses, even though almost all the viral gene expression is silenced, certain viral genes, including oncogenes, are expressed and manipulate pathways that can lead to genome instability (38, 39).

The epidemiologic association of these viruses with cancer is complicated by the fact that several viruses are highly prevalent in the human population. However, the malignancies that they are associated with are relatively rare and require genetic and/or environmental cofactors to develop. For example, seroprevalence of EBV is >80% in the United States (44). EBV is the causative agent of, and is associated with, all cases of nasopharyngeal cancer, which has particularly high incidence in specific geographic locations, suggesting that there are additional important cofactors for the development of disease (38). The virus may also act as a cofactor, as with Burkitt lymphoma where EBV is present in nearly 100% of Burkitt lymphoma cancers, but is not itself the causative agent (45). Burkitt lymphoma is caused by chromosomal translocations that deregulate the proto-oncogenic c-myc gene. There is evidence that Burkitt lymphoma cofactors EBV and malaria protect cells from c-myc–induced apoptosis and expand the number of EBV+ germinal center cells from which the lymphoma arises, respectively (46, 47). EBV is also associated with a subset of cases of Hodgkin disease and gastric cancers but is not causative (38). Interestingly, EBV viral gene expression is distinct in each of these malignancies because they arise at different stages of the viral life cycle (45). The varied interactions of EBV and other cofactors in a number of cancer types demonstrate the complicated interplay of contributing factors in cancer genesis and progression.

Barrier failure and microbial toxins

Anatomic separation of intestinal microbiota from the host epithelial cells is critical for regulating immune activation and upholding mutualistic host–microbial associations (12, 48). The goblet cells produce intestinal mucus and Paneth cells produce antimicrobial peptides, which contribute to the separation of host and microbial compartments across the mucosal interface, which limits interaction between the microbiome and immune system (49, 50). Disrupted barrier function may trigger inflammation and carcinogenesis. Ulcerative colitis and Crohn disease are well-known examples of intestinal barrier dysfunction and contribute to the risk of colon cancers (51–53) (Fig. 1C). A genome-wide association study suggests an association between colorectal tumor risk and polymorphisms in crucial barrier proteins, such as laminins (13, 54). Experiments in laboratory animals have shown that reduction of mucus or induced barrier failure increase the circulation of carcinogens through a disrupted gut, leading to the development of intestinal adenocarcinoma as well as tumors in distant organs (55, 56).

Impaired barrier function allows bacterial access to intestinal epithelium, which enables delivery of toxins. Bacterial toxins, such as colibactin-expressing Escherichia coli (encoded within the pks genomic island), potentiate colorectal cancer in azoxymethane-exposed mice (57). Toxins produced by enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis (B. fragilis) have been associated with acute inflammatory bowel disease (58), and colorectal neoplasia, especially in late-stage colorectal cancer (59). Similarly, several Gram-negative bacteria produce cytolethal distending toxin (CDT) that together with colibactin can cause DNA damage in mammalian cells. Chronic exposure to CDT promotes genomic instability in fibroblasts and colon epithelial cells (60). As stated earlier, genome instability is a hallmark of cancer.

Intestinal microbiota and their metabolites impact the development of cancer in sites distant from the intestine. For example, the liver does not contain a known microbiome. Yet, intestinal bacteria promote hepatocellular carcinoma (also caused by HBV and HCV) via inflammatory microorganism-associated molecular patterns and bacterial metabolites, which can circulate to distant sites (8, 13, 61). Sustained accumulation of lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a component of the Gram-negative bacterial cell wall, also promotes inflammation-associated hepatocarcinogenesis in animal models (61). Although mouse models have shown that gut commensal microflora and dietary fiber may protect against colonic inflammation and colon cancer through the microbe-produced metabolite butyrate (62–64), data from another study show the opposite effect (65). These studies, which are outside of the scope of the current review, highlight the issues when comparing microbiome studies across different research groups, as well as challenges in translating research data to consensus guidelines for dietary interventions to prevent cancer risks. Further investigation is required to delineate the role of butyrate and other diet-induced metabolites in carcinogenesis.

Gut microbiome and cancer

Although findings that associate the human microbiome with cancers are preliminary in nature, some hint at possible new microbe–cancer relationships that were not observed before the advent of high-throughput sequencing. This is likely due to the difficulty associated with cultivating microbial species, with an estimated less than 30% of human microbial species being culturable in the laboratory, and recent studies have suggested in some cases polymicrobial disease causation. In addition to human studies, there have been many studies performed in animal models, and some of these observations are outlined below.

One of the most deadly cancers is esophageal cancer. This is a disease that evolves from inflammation due to reflux esophagitis to metaplasia (Barrett esophagus; refs. 66, 67). The disease is possibly the result of several complicating factors, including antibiotics usage, diet, and smoking. Recent studies have shown a potential role of the microbiome in the esophagus in healthy and disease conditions (68). Microbiome analyses of the normal and esophagitis or Barrett esophagus biopsy samples reveal a significant difference between the microbiome of normal esophagus, which is dominated by the genus Streptococcus and the microbiome of esophagitis and Barrett esophagus with an increase in the relative abundance of Gram-negative anaerobic species (69). Similarly, Gall and colleagues observed that Streptococcus was the most prevalent genus in normal esophagus or reflux esophagitis versus Veillonella in Barrett esophagus; Fusobacterium was found only in patients with reflux esophagitis or Barrett esophagus but not in a normal esophagus (70). Another study in Barrett esophagus cohort found an association between the ratio of Streptococcus to Prevotella species and abdominal obesity as well as hiatal hernia length, which are two known esophageal adenocarcinoma risk factors in Barrett esophagus (70). To address a role for infectious disease species and the human microbiome in this disease etiology, our team recently performed NGS on gastroesophageal reflux disease samples derived from 121 subjects in different phenotypic groups (unpublished data). Samples for NGS were collected from the mouth, esophagus, stomach, and colon, and the resulting sequences clustered into 1,607 operational taxonomic units. We observed that the overall community composition was affected by body site and disease phenotype. Several bacterial phyla had significant correlations with disease stage. In the esophagus, Firmicutes was the only phylum with a significant positive correlation to disease.

Expression of pattern recognition receptors, such as Toll-like receptors (TLR), is known to be progressively increased in different stages of gastric cancer (Fig. 1D; refs. 71, 72). Whereas TLRs are localized to the apical and basolateral compartments in normal gastric epithelial cells, they become homogeneously distributed in tumor cells (73, 74). Interestingly, a similar paradigm has recently been observed in esophageal cancer. When the expression of TLR1, TLR2, TLR4, and TLR6 was examined in esophageal specimens from patients using IHC, expression for all of these TLRs was found to increase in Barrett mucosa and dysplasia and remain high in adenocarcinoma (75). Moreover, high expression of TLR4 in the nucleus and the cytoplasm was associated with metastasis and poor prognosis (75). Various cancer cells, including cells of an esophageal cancer cell line, demonstrated cellular invasion in an in vitro Matrigel assay when stimulated with DNA, a TLR9 ligand (76). A future challenge will be to define microbial interactions involving TLRs in an effort to understand cancer progression in the esophagus.

Although imbalances in the gut microbiota have been linked to colorectal adenomas and cancer, only Fusobacterium has been identified as a risk factor. Fusobacterium has been found to be associated with colorectal tumor tissue in several different studies (33, 77), but the presence of Porphyromonas species as well suggests the possibility of a polymicrobial disease trigger. In addition, other studies have identified Peptostreptococcus, Prevotella, Parvimonas, Leptotrichia, Campylobacter, and Gemella as additional genera that are associated with the detection of colorectal cancer (79). In studies of colon cancer, Zackular and colleagues used 16S rRNA gene signatures from the stool samples of healthy, precancerous adenomas, and colon cancer in humans to demonstrate that the feces of people with cancer tended to have an altered composition of bacteria, with an excess of the common mouth microbes, Fusobacterium or Porphyromonas (80). Similarly, Zeller his colleagues showed that the metagenomic profiling of fecal samples from colorectal cancer patients in comparison with tumor‐free controls reveals associations between the gut microbiota and cancer, distinguishing sample types with similar accuracy as the fecal occult blood test, used for clinical screening. Two Fusobacterium species, Porphyromonas asaccharolytica and Peptostreptococcus stomatis, were enriched in colorectal cancer patients (81). In addition, metatranscriptome data revealed a significant overrepresentation and cooccurrence of Fusobacterium, Campylobacter, and Leptotrichia genera in colorectal cancer tumor samples. These are Gram-negative anaerobes that are generally considered to be oral bacteria, but the tumor isolates of Fusobacterium and Campylobacter are genetically diverged from their oral complements (79). The Campylobacter isolate Campylobacter showae from the colorectal tumor was substantially diverged from their oral isolate (79). Other cancer-associated microbiome studies exist, although the cohorts used have invariably been relatively small. For example, to evaluate microbial association in oral cancers, Schmidt and colleagues (82) sequenced microbial DNA derived from cancer and normal tissues (matched) in patients. Comparison of 16S rRNA gene V4 data from these samples revealed changes in the abundance of Actinobacteria and Firmicutes between oral cancer and normal tissues (82).

Experiments with germ-free animals have helped to clarify causality between dysbiosis and cancer. For example, T-cell receptor β-chain and p53 knockout mice have the propensity to develop malignant tumors. When germ-free mice with the knockouts were colonized with gut microbiota, 70% of the animals developed adenocarcinomas in the colon, as expected. However, control germ-free animals did not develop adenocarcinomas in the same timeframe (83). Similarly, mice with a mutation in the tumor suppressor gene APC (adenomatous polyposis coli) had reduced occurrence of intestinal tumors when they were rendered germ free, as opposed to specific pathogen free, suggesting that commensal bacteria play a pathogenic role in this system (84). Tumors in the specific pathogen-free mice showed profiles of inflammation, signs of barrier damage, and activation of c-Jun/JNK and STAT3 pathways (84). An inflammation-based murine model can be generated by treating a normal mouse with the chemical carcinogen azoxymethane, followed by dextran sodium sulfate (85). When an antibiotic cocktail was administered in this model, the rate of colon tumors was reduced, although the total number of bacteria appeared to be unchanged, suggesting that specific species contribute to tumorigenesis (86). When germ-free mice were colonized with microbiota from cancer-bearing mice, the rate of tumors was higher than with microbiota from healthy mice (86). The demonstration of reduced frequencies of tumors in germ-free mice provides support for studies in which specific microbes added to conventional mice resulted in increased frequencies of cancer. Examples of specific microbes are F. nucleatum and enterotoxigenic B. fragilis as discussed above. Reconstitution of specific microbiotas in germ-free mice is an exciting approach for dissecting the network of microbial and host interactions involved in dysbiosis, inflammation, and cancer.

Immunoregulation and microbiome

Microbiota plays a significant, albeit incompletely mapped, role in the shaping of innate and acquired immunity (87). This process starts during the constitution of the microbial flora at birth, influencing the maturation of the immune system and the development of tolerance and containment of the microbiome (87–89). It continues throughout life via signaling by innate immunity receptors, through sampling of the microbiota by the acquired immune response, and by the generation of metabolic products (90, 91). The central role of immunity in the biology of cancer calls for attention to the exact contribution of microbiota in oncogenesis. For example, data from germ-free and antibiotic-treated mice suggest a diminished response to CpG stimulation in the setting of cancer immunotherapy (92). Upregulation of TLRs by LPS and other microbial products can activate the NF-κB, c-Jun/JNK, and JAK/STAT3 pathways that have well-defined roles in cell proliferation and immunosuppression (Fig. 1D; refs. 12, 93). More generally, the use of antibiotics in the clinical care of individuals with cancer, particularly during periods of immunosuppression, may interfere with effective anticancer immune responses (94).

Microbiome, autophagy, and cancer

Autophagy is a membrane-trafficking mechanism that delivers cytoplasmic constituents into the lysosome for protein degradation. Autophagy plays a significant role in the maintenance of cellular homeostasis. The role of autophagy in cancer is complex and context dependent. In preclinical models of carcinogenesis, autophagy prevents malignant transformation by degrading potentially harmful entities inside the cell but, later, promotes the growth of established tumors (95). One function of autophagy is to prevent intracellular viral and bacterial infection and control inflammation through innate immune signaling pathways (Fig. 1D; ref. 96). Many bacteria have evolved mechanisms to prevent degradation by autophagy, including H. pylori (97). Prolonged exposure to H. pylori protein VacA prevents autophagosome maturation, and the bacteria are able to persist in these compartments (98). This promotes an environment that favors carcinogenesis by the accumulation of damaged organelles and protein aggregates, persistent H. pylori infection, and chronic inflammation. The effect of autophagy on carcinogenesis also appears to be tissue specific, and its effects can be mediated through the microbiome. In the pancreas and lung, inhibition of autophagy predisposes the tissue to lesions (95). However, in models of colorectal cancer, the inhibition of autophagy prevents the development of precancerous lesions (99). The antitumor effects of this inhibition are mediated through the gut microbiome, as autophagy deficiency led to changes in the intestinal microbial community, and treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics impairs the protective CD8+ antitumoral responses, and induced intestinal lesions (99).

The Future of the Microbiome in Cancer Therapy: Development of Novel Diagnostics and Preventative Measures Based on Microbiome Profiles

As the scientific community continues to generate more microbiome data, and integrate other “omics” types such as transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics from well-phenotyped cohorts, we will identify novel microbial signatures that are associated with disease onset and progression in many diseases, including cancer. These microbiome signatures (including circulating metabolites) have the potential to be developed into diagnostics and therapeutics. Our team, for example, recently studied the microbiome in childhood leukemia patients (an estimated 15,000 children under the age of 19 are diagnosed with leukemia, lymphoma, and other tumors in the United States every year) with the goal of measuring microbiome changes associated with disease onset (100). Our other goal was to identify novel therapies that could be developed for compromises associated with chemotherapy treatment. Known side effects of chemotherapeutic treatments often include drug-induced gastrointestinal mucositis with diarrhea, constipation, and increased risk of gastrointestinal infections. In our study, the gastrointestinal microbiomes of pediatric and adolescent patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia were profiled by 16S rDNA gene sequencing before and during a chemotherapy course and compared with equivalent 16S rDNA data from their healthy siblings. The microbiome profiles of patients before chemotherapy and the control group were dominated by members of the genera Bacteroides, Prevotella, and Faecalibacterium, with these having mean relative abundances of 62.2%, 7.3%, and 6.4% respectively, in the patient group, and 40.2%, 12.2%, and 8.3% respectively, in the control group. Microbiome diversity, measured as the Shannon diversity index, of the patient group was significantly lower than that of the sibling control group, and discriminatory taxa included Anaerostipes, Coprococcus, Roseburia, and Ruminococcus, all of which had lower relative abundance in the disease group. This study is another example illustrating the potential for use of microbiome signatures that are associated with disease onset and progression to develop noninvasive approaches in cancer diagnosis.

Continued evaluation of the mechanisms used by microbes to trigger diseases will also enable the identification of therapeutic approaches, including the use of pre- and probiotics to restore a healthy microbiome and possibly to offset some of the impacts of toxic therapies. It has also been shown in murine models that commensal microbiota modulate the efficacy of anticancer therapy through the immune response. Loss of the microbiome decreased TNF expression, decreased proinflammatory cytokines, and reduced the production of reactive oxygen species, leading to impaired tumor regression and survival (92). Loss of the microbiome was also shown to reduce the stimulation of pathogenic Th 17 cells and eliminate chemotherapy effectiveness. Therefore, the efficacy of treatment may be improved through combined anticancer therapy with probiotics. When combined with novel approaches to vaccine design through synthetic biology, there are several opportunities for decreasing cancer incidence as a result of understanding our microbiome.

In this minireview, we presented a brief overview of recent history and advances that have been made with respect to understanding our microbiome and the development or correlation with cancer and future avenues of research that will be beneficial to this space, including the development of novel diagnostics, vaccines, and other therapeutic approaches to treatment.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

J.C. Venter is the co-founder, executive chairman, at Human Longevity, Inc., the founder, chairman, and chief executive officer at J. Craig Venter Institute, has received speakers bureau honoraria from The Harry Walker Agency, and has ownership interest (including patents) in Human Longevity, Inc., Synthetic Genomics, Inc., and J. Craig Venter Institute. A. Telenti is the chief data scientist at Human Longevity, Inc. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Grant Support

S.V. Rajagopala was funded by Hyundai Motor America and Hyundai Hope on Wheels and K.E. Nelson by the J. Craig Venter Institute.

  • Received September 26, 2016.
  • Revision received December 27, 2016.
  • Accepted December 30, 2016.
  • ©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Arumugam M,
    2. Raes J,
    3. Pelletier E,
    4. Le Paslier D,
    5. Yamada T,
    6. Mende DR,
    7. et al.
    Enterotypes of the human gut microbiome. Nature 2011;473:174–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Human Microbiome Project C. A framework for human microbiome research. Nature 2012;486:215–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Karlsson F,
    2. Tremaroli V,
    3. Nielsen J,
    4. Backhed F
    . Assessing the human gut microbiota in metabolic diseases. Diabetes 2013;62:3341–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Le Chatelier E,
    2. Nielsen T,
    3. Qin J,
    4. Prifti E,
    5. Hildebrand F,
    6. Falony G,
    7. et al.
    Richness of human gut microbiome correlates with metabolic markers. Nature 2013;500:541–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Pedersen HK,
    2. Gudmundsdottir V,
    3. Nielsen HB,
    4. Hyotylainen T,
    5. Nielsen T,
    6. Jensen BA,
    7. et al.
    Human gut microbes impact host serum metabolome and insulin sensitivity. Nature 2016;535:376–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Turnbaugh PJ,
    2. Hamady M,
    3. Yatsunenko T,
    4. Cantarel BL,
    5. Duncan A,
    6. Ley RE,
    7. et al.
    A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins. Nature 2009;457:480–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Chen GY,
    2. Shaw MH,
    3. Redondo G,
    4. Nunez G
    . The innate immune receptor Nod1 protects the intestine from inflammation-induced tumorigenesis. Cancer Res 2008;68:10060–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Dapito DH,
    2. Mencin A,
    3. Gwak GY,
    4. Pradere JP,
    5. Jang MK,
    6. Mederacke I,
    7. et al.
    Promotion of hepatocellular carcinoma by the intestinal microbiota and TLR4. Cancer Cell 2012;21:504–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Dove WF,
    2. Clipson L,
    3. Gould KA,
    4. Luongo C,
    5. Marshall DJ,
    6. Moser AR,
    7. et al.
    Intestinal neoplasia in the ApcMin mouse: independence from the microbial and natural killer (beige locus) status. Cancer Res 1997;57:812–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Grivennikov SI,
    2. Wang K,
    3. Mucida D,
    4. Stewart CA,
    5. Schnabl B,
    6. Jauch D,
    7. et al.
    Adenoma-linked barrier defects and microbial products drive IL-23/IL-17-mediated tumour growth. Nature 2012;491:254–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Reddy BS,
    2. Narisawa T,
    3. Wright P,
    4. Vukusich D,
    5. Weisburger JH,
    6. Wynder EL
    . Colon carcinogenesis with azoxymethane and dimethylhydrazine in germ-free rats. Cancer Res 1975;35:287–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Garrett WS
    . Cancer and the microbiota. Science 2015;348:80–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Schwabe RF,
    2. Jobin C
    . The microbiome and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2013;13:800–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Columpsi P,
    2. Sacchi P,
    3. Zuccaro V,
    4. Cima S,
    5. Sarda C,
    6. Mariani M,
    7. et al.
    Beyond the gut bacterial microbiota: The gut virome. J Med Virol 2016;88:1467–72.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Hannigan GD,
    2. Meisel JS,
    3. Tyldsley AS,
    4. Zheng Q,
    5. Hodkinson BP,
    6. SanMiguel AJ,
    7. et al.
    The human skin double-stranded DNA virome: topographical and temporal diversity, genetic enrichment, and dynamic associations with the host microbiome. mBio 2015;6:e01578–15.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Lopetuso LR,
    2. Ianiro G,
    3. Scaldaferri F,
    4. Cammarota G,
    5. Gasbarrini A
    . Gut virome and inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2016;22:1708–12.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. Pride DT,
    2. Salzman J,
    3. Haynes M,
    4. Rohwer F,
    5. Davis-Long C,
    6. White RA III.,
    7. et al.
    Evidence of a robust resident bacteriophage population revealed through analysis of the human salivary virome. ISME J 2012;6:915–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Yang JY,
    2. Kim MS,
    3. Kim E,
    4. Cheon JH,
    5. Lee YS,
    6. Kim Y,
    7. et al.
    Enteric viruses ameliorate gut inflammation via toll-like receptor 3 and toll-like receptor 7-mediated interferon-beta production. Immunity 2016;44:889–900.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. de Martel C,
    2. Ferlay J,
    3. Franceschi S,
    4. Vignat J,
    5. Bray F,
    6. Forman D,
    7. et al.
    Global burden of cancers attributable to infections in 2008: a review and synthetic analysis. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:607–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Suerbaum S,
    2. Michetti P
    . Helicobacter pylori infection. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1175–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Parkin DM
    . The global health burden of infection-associated cancers in the year 2002. Int J Cancer 2006;118:3030–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Polk DB,
    2. Peek RM Jr.
    . Helicobacter pylori: gastric cancer and beyond. Nat Rev Cancer 2010;10:403–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Uemura N,
    2. Okamoto S,
    3. Yamamoto S,
    4. Matsumura N,
    5. Yamaguchi S,
    6. Yamakido M,
    7. et al.
    Helicobacter pylori infection and the development of gastric cancer. N Engl J Med 2001;345:784–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Hardbower DM,
    2. de Sablet T,
    3. Chaturvedi R,
    4. Wilson KT
    . Chronic inflammation and oxidative stress: the smoking gun for Helicobacter pylori-induced gastric cancer? Gut Microbes 2013;4:475–81.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Koeppel M,
    2. Garcia-Alcalde F,
    3. Glowinski F,
    4. Schlaermann P,
    5. Meyer TF
    . Helicobacter pylori infection causes characteristic DNA damage patterns in human cells. Cell Rep 2015;11:1703–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Wroblewski LE,
    2. Peek RM Jr.
    . Helicobacter pylori in gastric carcinogenesis: mechanisms. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2013;42:285–98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Muller A
    . Multistep activation of the Helicobacter pylori effector CagA. J Clin Invest 2012;122:1192–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Machado AM,
    2. Figueiredo C,
    3. Touati E,
    4. Maximo V,
    5. Sousa S,
    6. Michel V,
    7. et al.
    Helicobacter pylori infection induces genetic instability of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA in gastric cells. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:2995–3002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Touati E,
    2. Michel V,
    3. Thiberge JM,
    4. Wuscher N,
    5. Huerre M,
    6. Labigne A
    . Chronic Helicobacter pylori infections induce gastric mutations in mice. Gastroenterology 2003;124:1408–19.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Lofgren JL,
    2. Whary MT,
    3. Ge Z,
    4. Muthupalani S,
    5. Taylor NS,
    6. Mobley M,
    7. et al.
    Lack of commensal flora in Helicobacter pylori-infected INS-GAS mice reduces gastritis and delays intraepithelial neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2011;140:210–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Lertpiriyapong K,
    2. Whary MT,
    3. Muthupalani S,
    4. Lofgren JL,
    5. Gamazon ER,
    6. Feng Y,
    7. et al.
    Gastric colonisation with a restricted commensal microbiota replicates the promotion of neoplastic lesions by diverse intestinal microbiota in the Helicobacter pylori INS-GAS mouse model of gastric carcinogenesis. Gut 2014;63:54–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Xie FJ,
    2. Zhang YP,
    3. Zheng QQ,
    4. Jin HC,
    5. Wang FL,
    6. Chen M,
    7. et al.
    Helicobacter pylori infection and esophageal cancer risk: an updated meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2013;19:6098–107.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Kostic AD,
    2. Gevers D,
    3. Pedamallu CS,
    4. Michaud M,
    5. Duke F,
    6. Earl AM,
    7. et al.
    Genomic analysis identifies association of Fusobacterium with colorectal carcinoma. Genome Res 2012;22:292–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. McCoy AN,
    2. Araujo-Perez F,
    3. Azcarate-Peril A,
    4. Yeh JJ,
    5. Sandler RS,
    6. Keku TO
    . Fusobacterium is associated with colorectal adenomas. PLoS One 2013;8:e53653.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Kostic AD,
    2. Chun E,
    3. Robertson L,
    4. Glickman JN,
    5. Gallini CA,
    6. Michaud M,
    7. et al.
    Fusobacterium nucleatum potentiates intestinal tumorigenesis and modulates the tumor-immune microenvironment. Cell Host Microbe 2013;14:207–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Rubinstein MR,
    2. Wang X,
    3. Liu W,
    4. Hao Y,
    5. Cai G,
    6. Han YW
    . Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes colorectal carcinogenesis by modulating E-cadherin/beta-catenin signaling via its FadA adhesin. Cell Host Microbe 2013;14:195–206.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Abed J,
    2. Emgard JE,
    3. Zamir G,
    4. Faroja M,
    5. Almogy G,
    6. Grenov A,
    7. et al.
    Fap2 mediates fusobacterium nucleatum colorectal adenocarcinoma enrichment by binding to tumor-expressed Gal-GalNAc. Cell Host Microbe 2016;20:215–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Pagano JS,
    2. Blaser M,
    3. Buendia MA,
    4. Damania B,
    5. Khalili K,
    6. Raab-Traub N,
    7. et al.
    Infectious agents and cancer: criteria for a causal relation. Semin Cancer Biol 2004;14:453–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Weitzman MD,
    2. Weitzman JB
    . What's the damage? The impact of pathogens on pathways that maintain host genome integrity. Cell Host Microbe 2014;15:283–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Xu W,
    2. Liu Z,
    3. Bao Q,
    4. Qian Z
    . Viruses, other pathogenic microorganisms and esophageal cancer. Gastrointest Tumors 2015;2:2–13.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    1. Liu W,
    2. MacDonald M,
    3. You J
    . Merkel cell polyomavirus infection and Merkel cell carcinoma. Curr Opin Virol 2016;20:20–7.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    1. Shuda M,
    2. Kwun HJ,
    3. Feng H,
    4. Chang Y,
    5. Moore PS
    . Human Merkel cell polyomavirus small T antigen is an oncoprotein targeting the 4E-BP1 translation regulator. J Clin Invest 2011;121:3623–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Wu JH,
    2. Simonette RA,
    3. Nguyen HP,
    4. Rady PL,
    5. Tyring SK
    . Merkel cell polyomavirus in Merkel cell carcinogenesis: small T antigen-mediates c-Jun phosphorylation. Virus Genes 2016;52:397–9.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    1. Dowd JB,
    2. Palermo T,
    3. Brite J,
    4. McDade TW,
    5. Aiello A
    . Seroprevalence of Epstein-Barr virus infection in U.S. children ages 6–19, 2003–2010. PLoS One 2013;8:e64921.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Thorley-Lawson DA,
    2. Allday MJ
    . The curious case of the tumour virus: 50 years of Burkitt's lymphoma. Nat Rev Microbiol 2008;6:913–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Anderton E,
    2. Yee J,
    3. Smith P,
    4. Crook T,
    5. White RE,
    6. Allday MJ
    . Two Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) oncoproteins cooperate to repress expression of the proapoptotic tumour-suppressor Bim: clues to the pathogenesis of Burkitt's lymphoma. Oncogene 2008;27:421–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Torgbor C,
    2. Awuah P,
    3. Deitsch K,
    4. Kalantari P,
    5. Duca KA,
    6. Thorley-Lawson DA
    . A multifactorial role for P. falciparum malaria in endemic Burkitt's lymphoma pathogenesis. PLoS Pathog 2014;10:e1004170.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Johansson ME,
    2. Phillipson M,
    3. Petersson J,
    4. Velcich A,
    5. Holm L,
    6. Hansson GC
    . The inner of the two Muc2 mucin-dependent mucus layers in colon is devoid of bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008;105:15064–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Kim YS,
    2. Ho SB
    . Intestinal goblet cells and mucins in health and disease: recent insights and progress. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2010;12:319–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Salzman NH,
    2. Underwood MA,
    3. Bevins CL
    . Paneth cells, defensins, and the commensal microbiota: a hypothesis on intimate interplay at the intestinal mucosa. Semin Immunol 2007;19:70–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Bergstrom K,
    2. Liu X,
    3. Zhao Y,
    4. Gao N,
    5. Wu Q,
    6. Song K,
    7. et al.
    Defective intestinal mucin-type O-glycosylation causes spontaneous colitis-associated cancer in mice. Gastroenterology 2016;151:152–64.
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.↵
    1. Hollander D,
    2. Vadheim CM,
    3. Brettholz E,
    4. Petersen GM,
    5. Delahunty T,
    6. Rotter JI
    . Increased intestinal permeability in patients with Crohn's disease and their relatives. A possible etiologic factor. Ann Intern Med 1986;105:883–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Jess T,
    2. Rungoe C,
    3. Peyrin-Biroulet L
    . Risk of colorectal cancer in patients with ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis of population-based cohort studies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:639–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Peters U,
    2. Jiao S,
    3. Schumacher FR,
    4. Hutter CM,
    5. Aragaki AK,
    6. Baron JA,
    7. et al.
    Identification of genetic susceptibility Loci for colorectal tumors in a genome-wide meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2013;144:799–807.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Velcich A,
    2. Yang W,
    3. Heyer J,
    4. Fragale A,
    5. Nicholas C,
    6. Viani S,
    7. et al.
    Colorectal cancer in mice genetically deficient in the mucin Muc2. Science 2002;295:1726–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. 56.↵
    1. Lin JE,
    2. Snook AE,
    3. Li P,
    4. Stoecker BA,
    5. Kim GW,
    6. Magee MS,
    7. et al.
    GUCY2C opposes systemic genotoxic tumorigenesis by regulating AKT-dependent intestinal barrier integrity. PLoS One 2012;7:e31686.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Arthur JC,
    2. Perez-Chanona E,
    3. Muhlbauer M,
    4. Tomkovich S,
    5. Uronis JM,
    6. Fan TJ,
    7. et al.
    Intestinal inflammation targets cancer-inducing activity of the microbiota. Science 2012;338:120–3.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. 58.↵
    1. Prindiville TP,
    2. Sheikh RA,
    3. Cohen SH,
    4. Tang YJ,
    5. Cantrell MC,
    6. Silva J Jr.
    . Bacteroidesfragilis enterotoxin gene sequences in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Emerg Infect Dis 2000;6:171–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Boleij A,
    2. Hechenbleikner EM,
    3. Goodwin AC,
    4. Badani R,
    5. Stein EM,
    6. Lazarev MG,
    7. et al.
    The Bacteroidesfragilis toxin gene is prevalent in the colon mucosa of colorectal cancer patients. Clin Infect Dis 2015;60:208–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. 60.↵
    1. Guidi R,
    2. Guerra L,
    3. Levi L,
    4. Stenerlow B,
    5. Fox JG,
    6. Josenhans C,
    7. et al.
    Chronic exposure to the cytolethal distending toxins of Gram-negative bacteria promotes genomic instability and altered DNA damage response. Cell Microbiol 2013;15:98–113.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Yu LX,
    2. Yan HX,
    3. Liu Q,
    4. Yang W,
    5. Wu HP,
    6. Dong W,
    7. et al.
    Endotoxin accumulation prevents carcinogen-induced apoptosis and promotes liver tumorigenesis in rodents. Hepatology 2010;52:1322–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Donohoe DR,
    2. Holley D,
    3. Collins LB,
    4. Montgomery SA,
    5. Whitmore AC,
    6. Hillhouse A,
    7. et al.
    A gnotobiotic mouse model demonstrates that dietary fiber protects against colorectal tumorigenesis in a microbiota- and butyrate-dependent manner. Cancer Discov 2014;4:1387–97.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. 63.↵
    1. Lupton JR
    . Microbial degradation products influence colon cancer risk: the butyrate controversy. J Nutr 2004;134:479–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. 64.↵
    1. Singh N,
    2. Gurav A,
    3. Sivaprakasam S,
    4. Brady E,
    5. Padia R,
    6. Shi H,
    7. et al.
    Activation of Gpr109a, receptor for niacin and the commensal metabolite butyrate, suppresses colonic inflammation and carcinogenesis. Immunity 2014;40:128–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Belcheva A,
    2. Irrazabal T,
    3. Robertson SJ,
    4. Streutker C,
    5. Maughan H,
    6. Rubino S,
    7. et al.
    Gut microbial metabolism drives transformation of MSH2-deficient colon epithelial cells. Cell 2014;158:288–99.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. Moons LM,
    2. Kusters JG,
    3. van Delft JH,
    4. Kuipers EJ,
    5. Gottschalk R,
    6. Geldof H,
    7. et al.
    A pro-inflammatory genotype predisposes to Barrett's esophagus. Carcinogenesis 2008;29:926–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. 67.↵
    1. Souza RF,
    2. Huo X,
    3. Mittal V,
    4. Schuler CM,
    5. Carmack SW,
    6. Zhang HY,
    7. et al.
    Gastroesophageal reflux might cause esophagitis through a cytokine-mediated mechanism rather than caustic acid injury. Gastroenterology 2009;137:1776–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    1. Snider EJ,
    2. Freedberg DE,
    3. Abrams JA
    . Potential role of the microbiome in Barrett's Esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Dig Dis Sci 2016;61:2217–25.
    OpenUrl
  69. 69.↵
    1. Yang L,
    2. Lu X,
    3. Nossa CW,
    4. Francois F,
    5. Peek RM,
    6. Pei Z
    . Inflammation and intestinal metaplasia of the distal esophagus are associated with alterations in the microbiome. Gastroenterology 2009;137:588–97.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    1. Gall A,
    2. Fero J,
    3. McCoy C,
    4. Claywell BC,
    5. Sanchez CA,
    6. Blount PL,
    7. et al.
    Bacterial composition of the human upper gastrointestinal tract microbiome is dynamic and associated with genomic instability in a Barrett's Esophagus Cohort. PLoS One 2015;10:e0129055.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    1. Fernandez-Garcia B,
    2. Eiro N,
    3. Gonzalez-Reyes S,
    4. Gonzalez L,
    5. Aguirre A,
    6. Gonzalez LO,
    7. et al.
    Clinical significance of toll-like receptor 3, 4, and 9 in gastric cancer. J Immunother 2014;37:77–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  72. 72.↵
    1. Pimentel-Nunes P,
    2. Afonso L,
    3. Lopes P,
    4. Roncon-Albuquerque R Jr.,
    5. Goncalves N,
    6. Henrique R,
    7. et al.
    Increased expression of toll-like receptors (TLR) 2, 4 and 5 in gastric dysplasia. Pathol Oncol Res 2011;17:677–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    1. Pimentel-Nunes P,
    2. Goncalves N,
    3. Boal-Carvalho I,
    4. Afonso L,
    5. Lopes P,
    6. Roncon-Albuquerque R Jr.,
    7. et al.
    Helicobacter pylori induces increased expression of Toll-like receptors and decreased Toll-interacting protein in gastric mucosa that persists throughout gastric carcinogenesis. Helicobacter 2013;18:22–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    1. Schmausser B,
    2. Andrulis M,
    3. Endrich S,
    4. Muller-Hermelink HK,
    5. Eck M
    . Toll-like receptors TLR4, TLR5 and TLR9 on gastric carcinoma cells: an implication for interaction with Helicobacter pylori. Int J Med Microbiol 2005;295:179–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    1. Huhta H,
    2. Helminen O,
    3. Lehenkari PP,
    4. Saarnio J,
    5. Karttunen TJ,
    6. Kauppila JH
    . Toll-like receptors 1, 2, 4 and 6 in esophageal epithelium, Barrett's esophagus, dysplasia and adenocarcinoma. Oncotarget 2016;7:23658–67.
    OpenUrl
  76. 76.↵
    1. Kauppila JH,
    2. Karttunen TJ,
    3. Saarnio J,
    4. Nyberg P,
    5. Salo T,
    6. Graves DE,
    7. et al.
    Short DNA sequences and bacterial DNA induce esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancer cell invasion. APMIS 2013;121:511–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    1. Castellarin M,
    2. Warren RL,
    3. Freeman JD,
    4. Dreolini L,
    5. Krzywinski M,
    6. Strauss J,
    7. et al.
    Fusobacterium nucleatum infection is prevalent in human colorectal carcinoma. Genome Res 2012;22:299–306.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. 78.↵
    1. Gur C,
    2. Ibrahim Y,
    3. Isaacson B,
    4. Yamin R,
    5. Abed J,
    6. Gamliel M,
    7. et al.
    Binding of the Fap2 protein of Fusobacterium nucleatum to human inhibitory receptor TIGIT protects tumors from immune cell attack. Immunity 2015;42:344–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. 79.↵
    1. Warren RL,
    2. Freeman DJ,
    3. Pleasance S,
    4. Watson P,
    5. Moore RA,
    6. Cochrane K,
    7. et al.
    Co-occurrence of anaerobic bacteria in colorectal carcinomas. Microbiome 2013;1:16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.↵
    1. Zackular JP,
    2. Rogers MA,
    3. Ruffin MTt,
    4. Schloss PD
    . The human gut microbiome as a Screening tool for colorectal cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2014;7:1112–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. 81.↵
    1. Zeller G,
    2. Tap J,
    3. Voigt AY,
    4. Sunagawa S,
    5. Kultima JR,
    6. Costea PI,
    7. et al.
    Potential of fecal microbiota for early-stage detection of colorectal cancer. Mol Syst Biol 2014;10:766.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  82. 82.↵
    1. Schmidt BL,
    2. Kuczynski J,
    3. Bhattacharya A,
    4. Huey B,
    5. Corby PM,
    6. Queiroz EL,
    7. et al.
    Changes in abundance of oral microbiota associated with oral cancer. PLoS One 2014;9:e98741.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. 83.↵
    1. Kado S,
    2. Uchida K,
    3. Funabashi H,
    4. Iwata S,
    5. Nagata Y,
    6. Ando M,
    7. et al.
    Intestinal microflora are necessary for development of spontaneous adenocarcinoma of the large intestine in T-cell receptor beta chain and p53 double-knockout mice. Cancer Res 2001;61:2395–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. 84.↵
    1. Li Y,
    2. Kundu P,
    3. Seow SW,
    4. de Matos CT,
    5. Aronsson L,
    6. Chin KC,
    7. et al.
    Gut microbiota accelerate tumor growth via c-jun and STAT3 phosphorylation in APCMin/+ mice. Carcinogenesis 2012;33:1231–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  85. 85.↵
    1. Tanaka T,
    2. Kohno H,
    3. Suzuki R,
    4. Yamada Y,
    5. Sugie S,
    6. Mori H
    . A novel inflammation-related mouse colon carcinogenesis model induced by azoxymethane and dextran sodium sulfate. Cancer Sci 2003;94:965–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. 86.↵
    1. Zackular JP,
    2. Baxter NT,
    3. Iverson KD,
    4. Sadler WD,
    5. Petrosino JF,
    6. Chen GY,
    7. et al.
    The gut microbiome modulates colon tumorigenesis. mBio 2013;4:e00692–13.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  87. 87.↵
    1. Thaiss CA,
    2. Zmora N,
    3. Levy M,
    4. Elinav E
    . The microbiome and innate immunity. Nature 2016;535:65–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. 88.↵
    1. Honda K,
    2. Littman DR
    . The microbiota in adaptive immune homeostasis and disease. Nature 2016;535:75–84.
    OpenUrl
  89. 89.↵
    1. Tamburini S,
    2. Shen N,
    3. Wu HC,
    4. Clemente JC
    . The microbiome in early life: implications for health outcomes. Nat Med 2016;22:713–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  90. 90.↵
    1. Kayama H,
    2. Takeda K
    . Functions of innate immune cells and commensal bacteria in gut homeostasis. J Biochem 2016;159:141–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  91. 91.↵
    1. Levy M,
    2. Thaiss CA,
    3. Elinav E
    . Metabolites: messengers between the microbiota and the immune system. Genes Dev 2016;30:1589–97.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  92. 92.↵
    1. Iida N,
    2. Dzutsev A,
    3. Stewart CA,
    4. Smith L,
    5. Bouladoux N,
    6. Weingarten RA,
    7. et al.
    Commensal bacteria control cancer response to therapy by modulating the tumor microenvironment. Science 2013;342:967–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  93. 93.↵
    1. Hamm AK,
    2. Weir TL
    . Editorial on “Cancer and the microbiota” published in Science. Ann Transl Med 2015;3:175.
    OpenUrl
  94. 94.↵
    1. Karin M,
    2. Jobin C,
    3. Balkwill F
    . Chemotherapy, immunity and microbiota–a new triumvirate? Nat Med 2014;20:126–7.
    OpenUrl
  95. 95.↵
    1. Galluzzi L,
    2. Pietrocola F,
    3. Bravo-San Pedro JM,
    4. Amaravadi RK,
    5. Baehrecke EH,
    6. Cecconi F,
    7. et al.
    Autophagy in malignant transformation and cancer progression. EMBO J 2015;34:856–80.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  96. 96.↵
    1. Deretic V,
    2. Saitoh T,
    3. Akira S
    . Autophagy in infection, inflammation and immunity. Nat Rev Immunol 2013;13:722–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. 97.↵
    1. Huang J,
    2. Brumell JH
    . Bacteria-autophagy interplay: a battle for survival. Nat Rev Microbiol 2014;12:101–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. 98.↵
    1. Greenfield LK,
    2. Jones NL
    . Modulation of autophagy by Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastric carcinogenesis. Trends Microbiol 2013;21:602–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. 99.↵
    1. Levy J,
    2. Cacheux W,
    3. Bara MA,
    4. L'Hermitte A,
    5. Lepage P,
    6. Fraudeau M,
    7. et al.
    Intestinal inhibition of Atg7 prevents tumour initiation through a microbiome-influenced immune response and suppresses tumour growth. Nat Cell Biol 2015;17:1062–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. 100.↵
    1. Rajagopala SV,
    2. Yooseph S,
    3. Harkins DM,
    4. Moncera KJ,
    5. Zabokrtsky KB,
    6. Torralba MG,
    7. et al.
    Gastrointestinal microbial populations can distinguish pediatric and adolescent Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) at the time of disease diagnosis. BMC Genomics 2016;17:635.
    OpenUrl
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Prevention Research: 10 (4)
April 2017
Volume 10, Issue 4
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Editorial Board (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Prevention Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Human Microbiome and Cancer
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Prevention Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Prevention Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The Human Microbiome and Cancer
Seesandra V. Rajagopala, Sanjay Vashee, Lauren M. Oldfield, Yo Suzuki, J. Craig Venter, Amalio Telenti and Karen E. Nelson
Cancer Prev Res April 1 2017 (10) (4) 226-234; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-16-0249

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The Human Microbiome and Cancer
Seesandra V. Rajagopala, Sanjay Vashee, Lauren M. Oldfield, Yo Suzuki, J. Craig Venter, Amalio Telenti and Karen E. Nelson
Cancer Prev Res April 1 2017 (10) (4) 226-234; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-16-0249
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • An Overview of the Human Microbiome, Immunity, and Cancer
    • The Future of the Microbiome in Cancer Therapy: Development of Novel Diagnostics and Preventative Measures Based on Microbiome Profiles
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Grant Support
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • E-Cigarettes and Cancer
  • Scented Candles as Risk Factor for Bladder Cancer
Show more Minireview
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Prevention Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Prevention Research
eISSN: 1940-6215
ISSN: 1940-6207

Advertisement