4.6 Article

Antibiotic-mediated bacteriome depletion in ApcMin/+ mice is associated with reduction in mucus-producing goblet cells and increased colorectal cancer progression

期刊

CANCER MEDICINE
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 2003-2012

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.1460

关键词

Antibiotics; Colorectal cancer; Goblet cells; Microbiome

类别

资金

  1. Center for Colon Cancer Research (CCCR) at University of South Carolina, Columbia
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [5P30GM103336-02]
  3. National Cancer Institute (NCI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent epidemiological evidence suggests that exposure to antibiotics in early-to-middle adulthood is associated with an increased risk of colorectal adenoma. However, mechanistic studies in established preclinical cancer to examine these claims are extremely limited. Therefore, we investigated the effect of long-term exposure of an antibiotic cocktail composed of Vancomycin, Neomycin, and Streptomycin, on tumor development and progression in the Apc(Min/)(+) mouse, an established genetic model for familial adenomatous polyposis. Clinical pathologies related to tumor development as well as intestinal and colon tissue histopathology were studied at ages 8, 12, and 16 weeks of age, which correspond to the approximate ages of development of neoplasia, gut inflammation with polyposis, and cancer progression, respectively, in this animal model. We show that the antibiotics significantly increase the severity of clinical symptoms, including effects on intestinal histology and goblet cell numbers. In addition, they promote small intestinal polyposis. Finally, metagenomic analysis of fecal samples demonstrated that antibiotic exposure is associated with a significant but nonuniform depletion of the animal's natural gut flora. Overall, these findings support the premise that long-term antibiotic exposure mediates the selected depletion of gut microbial communities and the concomitant thinning of the protective mucus layer, resulting in an increase in tumor development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据