A high-fat diet (HFD) induces metabolic disease and low-grade metabolic inflammation in response to changes in the intestinal microbiota through as-yet-unknown mechanisms. Here, we show that a HFD-derived ileum microbiota is responsible for a decrease in Th17 cells of the lamina propria in axenic colonized mice. The HFD also changed the expression profiles of intestinal antigen-presenting cells and their ability to generate Th17 cells in vitro. Consistent with these data, the metabolic phenotype was mimicked in RORγt-deficient mice, which lack IL17 and IL22 function, and in the adoptive transfer experiment of T cells from RORγt-deficient mice into Rag1-deficient mice. We conclude that the microbiota of the ileum regulates Th17 cell homeostasis in the small intestine and determines the outcome of metabolic disease.

High-fat-feeding increased intestinal permeability, perhaps by a mechanism related to bile acid metabolism, namely a decreased proportion of fecal UDCA and increased FXR expression.

Stenman LK, Holma R, Eggert A, Korpela R. A novel mechanism for gut barrier dysfunction by dietary fat: epithelial disruption by hydrophobic bile acids.

Alterations of the gut microbiota and mucosal barrier are linked with metabolic diseases. Our aim was to investigate the potential benefit of the potential probiotic Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis 420 in reducing high-fat diet-induced body weight gain and diabetes in mice. In the obesity model, C57Bl/6J mice were fed a high-fat diet (60 energy %) for 12 weeks, and gavaged daily with B. lactis 420 (109 cfu) or vehicle. In the diabetes model, mice were fed a high-fat, ketogenic diet (72 energy % fat) for 4 weeks, with a 6-week subsequent treatment with B. lactis 420 (108-1010 cfu/day) or vehicle, after which they were analysed for body composition. We also analysed glucose tolerance, plasma lipopolysaccharide and target tissue inflammation using only one of the B. lactis 420 groups (109 cfu/day). Intestinal bacterial translocation and adhesion were analysed in a separate experiment using an Escherichia coli gavage. Body fat mass was increased in both obese (10.7 ± 0.8 g (mean ± standard error of mean) vs. 1.86 ± 0.21 g, P<0.001) and diabetic mice (3.01 ± 0.4 g vs. 1.14 ± 0.15 g, P<0.001) compared to healthy controls. Treatment with B. lactis 420 significantly decreased fat mass in obese (7.83 ± 0.67 g, P=0.007 compared to obese with vehicle) and diabetic mice (1.89 ± 0.16 g, P=0.02 for highest dose). This was reflected as reduced weight gain and improved glucose tolerance. Furthermore, B. lactis 420 decreased plasma lipopolysaccharide levels (P<0.001), liver inflammation (P=0.04), and E. coli adhesion in the distal gut (P<0.05). In conclusion, B. lactis 420 reduces fat mass and glucose intolerance in both obese and diabetic mice. Reduced intestinal mucosal adherence and plasma lipopolysaccharide suggest a mechanism related to reduced translocation of gut microbes.

BackgroundThe gut microbiota is interlinked with obesity, but direct evidence of effects of its modulation on body fat mass is still scarce. We investigated the possible effects of Bifidobacterium animalisssp. lactis 420 (B420) and the dietary fiber Litesse® Ultra polydextrose (LU) on body fat mass and other obesity-related parameters.Methods225 healthy volunteers (healthy, BMI 28–34.9) were randomized into four groups (1:1:1:1), using a computer-generated sequence, for 6 months of double-blind, parallel treatment: 1) Placebo, microcrystalline cellulose, 12 g/d; 2) LU, 12 g/d; 3) B420, 1010 CFU/d in microcrystalline cellulose, 12 g/d; 4) LU + B420, 12 g + 1010 CFU/d. Body composition was monitored with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and the primary outcome was relative change in body fat mass, comparing treatment groups to Placebo. Other outcomes included anthropometric measurements, food intake and blood and fecal biomarkers. The study was registered in Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01978691).FindingsThere were marked differences in the results of the Intention-To-Treat (ITT; n = 209) and Per Protocol (PP; n = 134) study populations. The PP analysis included only those participants who completed the intervention with > 80% product compliance and no antibiotic use. In addition, three participants were excluded from DXA analyses for PP due to a long delay between the end of intervention and the last DXA measurement. There were no significant differences between groups in body fat mass in the ITT population. However, LU + B420 and B420 seemed to improve weight management in the PP population. For relative change in body fat mass, LU + B420 showed a − 4.5% (− 1.4 kg, P = 0.02, N = 37) difference to the Placebo group, whereas LU (+ 0.3%, P = 1.00, N = 35) and B420 (− 3.0%, P = 0.28, N = 24) alone had no effect (overall ANOVA P = 0.095, Placebo N = 35). A post-hoc factorial analysis was significant for B420 (− 4.0%, P = 0.002 vs. Placebo). Changes in fat mass were most pronounced in the abdominal region, and were reflected by similar changes in waist circumference. B420 and LU + B420 also significantly reduced energy intake compared to Placebo. Changes in blood zonulin levels and hsCRP were associated with corresponding changes in trunk fat mass in the LU + B420 group and in the overall population. There were no differences between groups in the incidence of adverse events.DiscussionThis clinical trial demonstrates that a probiotic product with or without dietary fiber controls body fat mass. B420 and LU + B420 also reduced waist circumference and food intake, whereas LU alone had no effect on the measured outcomes.

The gut microbiota contributes to host energy metabolism, and altered gut microbiota has been associated with obesity-related metabolic disorders. We previously reported that a probiotic alone or together with a prebiotic controls body fat mass in healthy overweight or obese individuals in a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01978691). We now aimed to investigate whether changes in the gut microbiota may be associated with the observed clinical benefits. Faecal and plasma samples were obtained from a protocol compliant subset (n=134) of participants from a larger clinical study where participants were randomised (1:1:1:1) into four groups: (1) placebo, 12 g/d microcrystalline cellulose; (2) Litesse® Ultra™ polydextrose (LU), 12 g/day; (3) Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis 420™ (B420), 1010 cfu/d in 12 g microcrystalline cellulose; (4) LU+B420, 1010 cfu/d of B420 in 12 g/d LU for 6 months of intervention. The faecal microbiota composition and metabolites were assessed as exploratory outcomes at baseline, 2, 4, 6 months, and +1 month post-intervention and correlated to obesity-related clinical outcomes. Lactobacillus and Akkermansia were more abundant with B420 at the end of the intervention. LU+B420 increased Akkermansia, Christensenellaceae and Methanobrevibacter, while Paraprevotella was reduced. Christensenellaceae was consistently increased in the LU and LU+B420 groups across the intervention time points, and correlated negatively to waist-hip ratio and energy intake at baseline, and waist-area body fat mass after 6 months treatment with LU+B420. Functional metagenome predictions indicated alterations in pathways related to cellular processes and metabolism. Plasma bile acids glycocholic acid, glycoursodeoxycholic acid, and taurohyodeoxycholic acid and tauroursodeoxycholic acid were reduced in LU+B420 compared to Placebo. Consumption of B420 and its combination with LU resulted in alterations of the gut microbiota and its metabolism, and may support improved gut barrier function and obesity-related markers.

BackgroundGut microbiota is now known to control glucose metabolism. Previous studies have shown that probiotics and prebiotics may improve glucose metabolism, but their effects have not been studied in combination with drug therapy. The aim of this study was to investigate whether probiotics and prebiotics combined with drug therapy affect diabetic outcomes.MethodsTwo different study designs were used to test gut microbiota modulating treatments with metformin (MET) or sitagliptin (SITA) in male C57Bl/6J mice. In Design 1, diabetes was induced with four-week feeding with a ketogenic, 72 kcal% fat diet with virtually no carbohydrates. Mice were then randomly divided into four groups (n = 10 in each group): (1) vehicle, (2) Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis 420 (B420) (109 CFU/day), (3) MET (2 mg/mL in drinking water), or (4) MET + B420 (same doses as in the MET and B420 groups). After another 4 weeks, glucose metabolism was assessed with a glucose tolerance test. Fasting glucose, fasting insulin and HOMA-IR were also assessed. In Design 2, mice were fed the same 72 kcal% fat diet to induce diabetes, but they were simultaneously treated within their respective groups (n = 8 in each group): (1) non-diabetic healthy control, (2) vehicle, (3) SITA [3 mg/(kg*day)] (4) SITA with prebiotic polydextrose (PDX) (0.25 g/day), (5) SITA with B420 (109 CFU/day), and (6) SITA + PDX + B420. Glucose metabolism was assessed at 4 weeks, and weight development was monitored for 6 weeks.ResultsIn Design 1, with low-dose metformin, mice treated with B420 had a significantly lower glycemic response (area under the curve) (factorial experiment, P = 0.002) and plasma glucose concentration (P = 0.02) compared to mice not treated with B420. In Design 2, SITA + PDX reduced glycaemia in the oral glucose tolerance test significantly more than SITA only (area under the curve reduced 28 %, P < 0.0001). In addition, B420, PDX or B420+PDX, together with SITA, further decreased fasting glucose concentrations compared to SITA only (−19.5, −40 and −49 %, respectively, P < 0.01 for each comparison). The effect of PDX may be due to its ability to increase portal vein GLP-1 concentrations together with SITA (P = 0.0001 compared to vehicle) whereas SITA alone had no statistically significant effect compared to vehicle (P = 0.14).ConclusionsThis study proposes that combining probiotics and/or prebiotics with antidiabetic drugs improves glycemic control and insulin sensitivity in mice. Mechanisms could be related to incretin secretion.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13098-015-0075-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Changes in the gut microbiota are associated with metabolic disorders, such as overweight and elevated blood glucose. Mouse studies have shown that gut microbiota can regulate metabolism with a mechanism related to gut barrier function. An impaired gut barrier permits the translocation of bacteria and their components which, when in contact with the sub-mucosal immune system, evoke metabolic inflammation and distract signalling in metabolically active tissues. Despite thorough research of the topic in animals, the hypothesis is yet to be proven in humans. Cross-sectional studies have shown that certain bacterial populations - such as Akkermansia muciniphila, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Methanobrevibacter smithii and Christensenellaceae - are better represented in lean individuals compared to those who are overweight or metabolically unhealthy. Although these differences reflect those seen in mice, it is possible that they are caused by different dietary or other lifestyle habits. Diet has an indisputable influence on gut microbiota making it very difficult to draw conclusions on microbiota-host interactions from cross-sectional studies. Certain research areas do, however, indicate that gut microbiota could causally influence metabolism. Several studies show that antibiotic use in infancy increases body weight in later childhood. Also, probiotics are emerging as a potential therapy for metabolic syndrome. In fact, a handful of human studies and numerous animal studies show promise for probiotics in reducing blood glucose levels or improving insulin sensitivity. For weight management human evidence is scarcer. Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly recognised that gut microbiota plays a part regulating metabolism, also in humans, which gives rise to novel opportunities for preventative and treatment strategies.