Probiotics in colorectal cancer: mechanisms, biomarkers, and adjunct strategies

Probiotics in colorectal cancer: mechanisms, biomarkers, and adjunct strategies

PDF

Zihe Xu¹^,²^,³^,⁴, Lan Mu¹^,⁵, Hao Su¹^,²^,³^,⁴, Xiaoting Zhang¹^,²^,³^,⁴, Haiyun Shang¹^,²^,³^,⁴, Zhuotian Li¹^,²^,³^,⁴, Matthew Tak Vai Chan¹^,²^,³^,⁴, William Ka Kei Wu¹^,²^,³^,⁴, Huarong Chen¹^,²^,³^,⁴

Cancer Biology & Medicine | 2026, 23(5) : 596 - 614

Less

Cancer Biology & Medicine | 2026, 23(5): 596-614

• Review •

Probiotics in colorectal cancer: mechanisms, biomarkers, and adjunct strategies

Full

Affiliations

¹Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care and Peter Hung Pain Research Institute, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

²Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

³CUHK Shenzhen Research Institute, Shenzhen 518000, China

⁴State Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

⁵University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK

About Author:

Author contributions

Conceived and designed the manuscript: Huarong Chen, William Ka Kei Wu.

Drafted the manuscript: Zihe Xu, Lan Mu.

Reviewed the manuscript: Zihe Xu, Lan Mu, Hao Su, Xiaoting Zhang, Haiyun Shang, Zhuotian Li, Matthew Tak Vai Chan, William Ka Kei Wu, Huarong Chen.

Published: 2026-05-15 doi: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2026.0133

Outline

Abstract

Less

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most common malignant tumors and remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. The gut microbiota and metabolites, which are modulated by host genetics and environmental exposures, have emerged as key contributors to the pathogenesis of CRC. A key feature of gut dysbiosis in CRC is the enrichment of pathogenic bacteria alongside the depletion of beneficial commensals. Probiotic supplementation has been shown to counteract this imbalance and suppress tumor progression. Mechanistically, probiotics suppress CRC development through multifaceted actions, including directly inhibiting tumor cell growth, reducing inflammation, reinforcing the intestinal barrier, and reprogramming host immunity. This review summarizes evidence on the inhibitory role of probiotics in CRC, evaluates the potential of probiotics as predictive biomarkers, and discusses microbiome-modulation strategies designed to enhance immunotherapy and chemotherapy, thereby offering a complementary paradigm for CRC prevention and treatment.

Key words

Colorectal cancer / probiotics / mechanism / biomarker / therapy

Cite this Article

Zihe Xu, Lan Mu, Hao Su, Xiaoting Zhang, Haiyun Shang, Zhuotian Li, Matthew Tak Vai Chan, William Ka Kei Wu, Huarong Chen. Probiotics in colorectal cancer: mechanisms, biomarkers, and adjunct strategies[J]. Cancer Biology & Medicine, 2026 , 23 (5) : 596 -614 . DOI: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2026.0133

Full Text

Less

Introduction

Less

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a leading cause of global cancer morbidity and mortality. This malignancy arises from a complex interplay of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Intrinsic drivers include genetic mutations, immune dysregulation, and metabolic reprogramming within cells, while extrinsic influences encompass diet, obesity, lifestyle, and environmental exposures^1–3. Central to this paradigm is the gut microbiota, a complex community of bacteria, fungi, archaea, viruses, and parasites that is fundamental to intestinal homeostasis. The gut microbiota consists of commensals (symbiotic, beneficial species), pathobionts (which become harmful in dysbiosis), and transient microbes⁴. This ecosystem undergoes profound dysbiosis in CRC. Despite population-level variations in baseline microbiota due to genetics and diet, consistent patterns emerge across cohorts. Specifically, a marked depletion of commensal, potentially protective species is accompanied by a selective enrichment of microorganisms with pro-carcinogenic functions^5–7. Given the established role of dysbiosis as a driver of carcinogenesis, therapeutic strategies focused on restoring microbial equilibrium have become a major research focus. These approaches aim to reconstitute beneficial taxa and precisely modulate pathogenic host–microbe interactions⁸. Within this framework, the investigation of probiotics, both for CRC prevention and as potential adjuvants to conventional therapy, represents a critical and timely translational pursuit.

Alterations in the gut microbiota are detectable from the earliest stages of colorectal carcinogenesis, spurring interest in non-invasive screening that uses microbial abundance as an early diagnostic indicator^9,10. In addition to diagnosis, the presence of specific probiotic species has emerged as a biomarker for predicting patient responsiveness to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy and long-term prognosis¹¹. Notably, the depletion of these beneficial bacteria may represent a critical tipping point in tumor progression. In support of this notion, studies in animal models have consistently shown that probiotic supplementation can significantly suppress colorectal cancer development^12,13. Mechanistically, probiotics exert antitumor effects by generating beneficial metabolites, strengthening the intestinal barrier, restoring microbial homeostasis, and potentiating antitumor immune responses^13–15. Together, these findings highlight the dual promise of probiotics in colorectal cancer as both predictive biomarkers and therapeutic agents.

Despite the growing evidence, several challenges hinder the clinical translation of probiotics. Achieving robust therapeutic efficacy while minimizing microbial toxicity, as well as developing strategies that precisely target the specific microbes, remain critical and underexplored avenues. Indeed, the rational design of microbiota-based combination therapies warrant greater attention in future research given the dynamic nature and individual variability of the gut microbiome. In this review we summarize current knowledge on the molecular mechanisms through which probiotics and metabolites influence cancer therapy. We discuss strategies for targeting the gut microbiota in CRC intervention, evaluate the potential of the gut microbiota as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers, and explore emerging microbiota-based therapies centered on probiotics for CRC prevention and management. By integrating these perspectives, we aim to provide a comprehensive framework for future clinical translation.

Mechanisms underlying probiotics in suppressing CRC

Less

Probiotics are live microorganisms that improve gut health and immunity by balancing the gut microbiome. Supplementation with specific beneficial bacteria has shown promise in suppressing tumorigenesis. This supplementation includes classic probiotics (Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium spp.), as well as other beneficial commensals recently identified for antitumor potential. These organisms exert the effects through key mechanisms: reversing dysbiosis; restoring the intestinal barrier; and modulating immune responses (Figures 1 and 2).

Restoring the intestinal mechanical barrier

The intestinal barrier is comprised of mechanical and chemical components that work in concert to protect the host from luminal threats. Mechanical barriers physically block and remove pathogens (e.g., mucus and epithelial tight junctions), while chemical barriers (antimicrobial peptides and enzymatic mediators) kill or inhibit pathogens using specialized molecules (e.g., α/β-defensins, cathelicidin, and lysozyme). The intestinal epithelial barrier, as the primary mechanical defense, functions as a selectively permeable interface by restricting the passage of harmful substances while supporting epithelial regeneration. Bacterial endotoxins [e.g., lipopolysaccharide (LPS)], food antigens, and microbial metabolites translocate into the systemic circulation when this barrier is compromised, triggering a cascade of chronic inflammation. This persistent inflammatory state promotes local immune dysregulation and inflicts damage on epithelial cells, thereby driving malignant transformation¹⁶. Key barrier components are essential for this protective function. For example, the tight junction (TJ) protein, claudin-7, is crucial for tissue integrity. In fact, claudin-7 deficiency in mice disrupts cell junctions, exacerbates inflammation, and promotes severe colitis and colon cancer¹⁷. Similarly, mucin-2 (Muc2), the primary secreted gastrointestinal mucin, is vital for maintaining normal intestinal architecture. Mice lacking Muc2 frequently develop invasive adenocarcinomas, underscoring the critical role in suppressing CRC¹⁸.

Several probiotic strains can repair and reinforce the intestinal epithelium (Table 1). For example, Lactobacillus acidophilus (L. acidophilus) upregulates occludin²⁰, Lactobacillus plantarum (L. plantarum) upregulates ZO-1 and ZO-2¹⁴, Lactobacillus rhamnosus (L. rhamnosus) upregulates claudin-3²¹; Bifidobacterium infantis (B. infantis)upregulates claudin-4²⁴; and Escherichia coli Nissle (E. coli Nissle) 1917 upregulates ZO-2²⁶. Other strains, including Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) CW14 and L. plantarum ZLP001, prevent ZO-1 degradation and alleviate damage from increased intestinal permeability^19,27. Probiotics also support the epithelial barrier by increasing goblet cell populations [Faecalibacterium prausnitzii (F. prausnitzii)³⁰] and elevating mucin (MUC-2) expression [Clostridium butyricum (C. butyricum)³¹]. Mechanistically, probiotic-mediated intestinal barrier repair frequently involves activation of toll-like receptor (TLR) signaling pathways. Strains, such as Bacillus amyloliquefaciens SC06³², B. subtilis CW14²⁷, and Lactobacillus reuteri (L. reuteri)²², modulate TLR signaling pathways to improve mucosal structure and TJ integrity. For example, Bifidobacterium bifidum (B. bifidum) activates the TLR-2/TLR-6 receptor complex on intestinal epithelial cells, thereby inducing IRAK-1 phosphorylation and recruitment of the anti-inflammatory adapter protein, TOLLIP, to the apical membrane, which results in the downstream upregulation of occludin²⁵. L. acidophilus enhances barrier function through a TLR-2-dependent pathway involving PI3K-mediated inhibition of TNF-α-induced NF-κB activation, thereby protecting against inflammation-induced barrier disruption³³. Another critical pathway involves the suppression of pro-inflammatory signaling cascades. For example, B. bifidum prevents TNF-α-induced barrier disruption³⁴, while B. infantis and L. acidophilus normalize occludin and claudin-1 expression, and suppress NF-κB activation under IL-1β stimulation²³. Furthermore, L. rhamnosus CY12 can alleviate colitis by inhibiting the TLR-4/MyD88/NF-κB signaling pathway, thereby reducing pro-inflammatory cytokine (IL-6, IL-1β, and TNF-α) expression, while promoting production of the anti-inflammatory cytokine, IL-10³⁵. Suppression of NF-κB can also prevent activation of myosin light chain kinase (MLCK), which induces actomyosin contraction and TJ opening by phosphorylating the myosin II regulatory light chain (MLC2)³⁶.

In addition to direct regulation of host proteins, the protective metabolites produced by these probiotics have a critical role. For example, propionate secreted by Akkermansia muciniphila (A. muciniphila) activates the GPR43 receptor to enhance the expression of occludin, ZO-1, and mucins²⁸. In a more complex interaction, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) produced by Bifidobacterium breve (B. breve) promotes the growth of Odoribacter splanchnicus, which in turn increases butyrate production. This cascade upregulates TJ proteins and modulates inflammatory cytokines¹². Roseburia intestinalis also directly improves intestinal permeability in Apc^Min/+ mice via butyrate production²⁹. Collectively, these mechanisms demonstrate that probiotics maintain intestinal barrier integrity through direct protein upregulation, immune modulation, and metabolite-mediated protection, thereby counteracting inflammatory and pathogenic insults and highlighting the therapeutic potential in CRC (Figure 1A).

Inhibition of pathogenic bacteria growth and colonization

CRC is marked by severe gut microbiota dysbiosis, in which pathogenic bacteria become enriched and actively contribute to disease progression⁷. Stool transplants from CRC patients can directly induce carcinogenesis in mice, leading to increased dysplasia, proliferation, and pro-tumorigenic inflammation³⁷. Pathogens, such as Fusobacterium nucleatum (F. nucleatum), Peptostreptococcus anaerobius, and Bacteroides fragilis (B. fragilis), drive tumorigenesis through multiple mechanisms, including enhanced mucosal adhesion³⁸, production of harmful metabolites³⁹, induction of damage via virulence factors⁴⁰, and conferring resistance to chemotherapy^41,42. While targeted strategies, like selective antibiotics or phage therapy, have been explored, the limitations are significant. Antibiotic overuse risks driving bacterial resistance and further disrupts microbial balance. Indeed, the elimination of a single species often fails to restore overall community homeostasis. Consequently, there is a compelling rationale for more systematic microbiota modulation, such as can be achieved with probiotic supplementation. For example, a clinical study in CRC patients demonstrated that oral administration of a probiotic mixture containing Lactobacillus lactis (L. lactis) and L. acidophilus significantly increased beneficial butyrate-producers, while reducing CRC-associated taxa, like Clostridium and Peptostreptococcus⁴³. This finding underscores the potential of probiotics to simultaneously reconfigure microbial populations and ameliorate dysbiosis.

Probiotics can significantly reshape the gut microbial community structure and exert broader modulatory effects on the intestinal ecosystem (Table 2). For example, administration of L. rhamnosus GG or B. breve CCFM683 significantly increase the abundance of key butyrate producers, such as Faecalibacterium, Roseburia, and Akkermansia^12,46,47. This shift is particularly relevant for CRC prevention because butyrate reinforces the intestinal barrier, exhibits anti-inflammatory properties, and supports colonocyte health. Another consistent pattern is the suppression of pro-inflammatory and potentially pathogenic taxa. Probiotic interventions often reduce the relative abundance of genera associated with mucosal inflammation and tumor promotion. For example, L. plantarum L168 inhibits the overgrowth of Oscillibacter and Alistipes, while simultaneously increasing the abundance of Faecalibaculum and Bifidobacterium⁵⁰. In addition to single-strain interventions, rationally designed multi-strain consortia can further enhance the precision of microbial modulation. A synthetic community (SynCom) composed of seven strains successfully eradicated F. nucleatum and suppressed F. nucleatum-associated CRC in mice⁵¹. Similarly, larger microbial consortia have been shown to enhance resistance to enteric pathogens or alleviate intestinal inflammation^52,53.

Probiotics prevent pathogenic colonization and expansion through several strategies: (1) secretion of direct antimicrobial compounds; (2) sequestration of essential nutrients; (3) blockade of mucosal adhesion; and (4) interference with pathogen quorum sensing (QS) (Figure 1B). Direct antibacterial activity could be mediated by secreted molecules. For example, nisin from L. lactis forms pores in the membrane of pathogens, particularly, gram-positive bacteria, leading to rapid bacteria death, while L. lactis self-protects from nisin by expressing NisI (a membrane-anchored lipoprotein capturing nisin before reaching the membrane) and NisFEG (an ABC transporter expelling nisin)⁵⁴. Organic acids, such as lactic and acetic acids, penetrate bacterial membranes, acidify the cytoplasm, and impair the proton motive force, thereby inhibiting growth. Engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae with a BTS1 gene knockout produces lactic acid, lowering the environmental pH to inhibit E. coli and Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) growth, and disrupt biofilm formation⁵⁵. These pathogens are often more vulnerable than commensal bacteria to environmental stresses, such as acidification, metabolic strain, and membrane disruption. In addition, vitamin B6 produced by Lactobacillus spp. can compromise pathogenic cell membrane integrity, leading to leakage of intracellular contents and bacterial death⁵⁶. Competitive exclusion through nutrition limitation represents another critical mechanism. For example, B. infantis suppresses host apoptotic pathways, activates anti-inflammatory signaling, and competes with Salmonella typhimurium (S. typhimurium) for arginine, thereby limiting growth⁵⁷. Iron is another nutrient for which strains compete. The probiotic strain, E. coli Nissle 1917, produces high-affinity siderophores, such as salmochelin, enabling efficient iron acquisition and thereby outcompeting and reducing S. typhimurium colonization in mouse models of acute colitis and chronic persistent infection⁵⁸. Similarly, Bifidobacteria with strong iron-chelating capacity can inhibit the growth and adhesion of enterohemorrhagic E. coli and Salmonella in vitro⁵⁹. Blocking mucosal adhesion establishes an additional physical barrier that limits colonization by opportunistic pathogens. Probiotics facilitate this effect by competing for glycan receptors on intestinal epithelial cells, typically through surface-layer proteins or pili. For example, Bifidobacterium pseudolongum (B. pseudolongum) PV8-2 exhibits high affinity for mucins and significantly reduces S. typhimurium adhesion to epithelial cells in vitro⁵⁹. QS allows individual bacteria to coordinate colony-wide functions, making QS a promising target for intervention. Probiotics can disrupt this process by secreting enzymes or metabolites that degrade or mimic QS signaling molecules and reducing virulence without exerting direct killing. For example, Bacillus strains produce fengycins, a class of lipopeptides that inhibit the S. aureus agr QS system, reducing toxin production and biofilm formation⁶⁰. In addition, certain Lactobacillus strains degrade autoinducer-2 (AI-2), a signal molecule widely used by gram-negative bacterial pathogens to coordinate virulence⁶¹. While these mechanisms are promising, corollary human studies are needed. Ultimately, exploiting such microbial antagonism to identify targeted antimicrobial molecules could offer novel avenues for microbiota-based CRC therapies.

Probiotic metabolites target cancer signals

Probiotic-derived metabolites are central to the therapeutic benefits against CRC. These microbial molecules, encompassing carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and small compounds, directly reprogram oncogenic signaling, modify epigenetic pathways, and enhance antitumor immunity to suppress tumor growth. Probiotic-derived metabolites could promote the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in tumor cells to trigger mitochondrial apoptotic pathways. For example, Bifidobacterium longum D42 elevates intracellular ROS in HT-29 cells, disrupts mitochondrial membrane potential, promotes cytochrome c release, and activates downstream caspase cascades, ultimately inducing CRC cell apoptosis via the intrinsic mitochondrial pathway⁶². In contrast, probiotic metabolites could directly interfere with core oncogenic networks to halt proliferation and induce apoptosis. The well-studied metabolite, butyrate, inhibits pro-survival pathways, like NF-κB and STAT3, downregulating cyclins, and activating apoptosis genes⁶³. Moreover, butyrate has been reported to suppress vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression by blocking the transactivation of the key transcription factor [specificity protein 1 (Sp1)], thereby reducing tumor angiogenesis and migration^64,65. Riboflavin from Bacteroides cellulosilyticus binds to ceramide synthase (CERS3), blocking the synthesis of very long-chain ceramide (C26) and the interaction with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), thereby attenuating proliferation⁶⁶. Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) from B. breve activates PPAR-γ to promote tumor cell apoptosis¹². Furthermore, gut microbiota-derived N-acetylmuramic acid inhibits AKT1 phosphorylation, suppressing the AKT1-FOXO3a pathway to suppress cancer cell proliferation and induce apoptosis⁶⁷. In addition to small molecules, probiotic macromolecules exert antitumor effects. β-galactosidase from Streptococcus thermophilus generates galactose, impairing glucose utilization and activating oxidative phosphorylation to inhibit tumor growth⁴⁴. The extracellular polysaccharide, YL-11 EPS, from Lactobacillus YL-11 blocks the PI3K/AKT pathway, arresting the cell cycle at G1 phase, thereby suppressing colorectal carcinogenesis⁶⁸. In addition, extracellular vesicles from L. plantarum can be internalized by CRC cells, downregulating the desuccinylase (SIRT5) to enhance succinylation of p53, inhibiting glycolysis and proliferation while inducing apoptosis⁶⁹. Probiotic metabolites can also function as epigenetic regulators, reversibly altering chromatin states to reshape transcriptional programs. For example, butyrate acts as an endogenous histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor that increases histone acetylation by suppressing HDAC activity, thereby opening chromatin structure to activate the transcription of tumor suppressor and apoptosis-related genes, while simultaneously repressing oncogene expression^70,71. Together, probiotic-derived metabolites combat CRC through diverse mechanisms, including oxidative stress induction, modulation of oncogenic signaling pathways, suppression of angiogenesis, and epigenetic reprogramming via HDAC inhibition. These findings underscore the therapeutic potential of these bioactive molecules as mechanism-based adjuncts to conventional CRC therapy.

Probiotic metabolites remodeling the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME)

While ICI therapy targeting PD-1 is approved for microsatellite instability (MSI) CRC, the efficacy remains restricted in the majority of microsatellite stable (MSS) tumors⁷². MSS CRC is typically considered an immunologically “cold” tumor that is characterized by limited infiltration of cytotoxic T cells within the TIME, and enrichment of immunosuppressive populations, such as myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), regulatory T cells (Tregs), and M2-type tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs)⁷³. This immunosuppressive milieu leads to intrinsic resistance to ICI therapy. A key mechanism by which probiotics and metabolites may overcome this limitation is by reprogramming the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, converting “cold” tumors into “hot” immunologically active tumors to synergize with ICIs. For example, among patients resistant to ICIs, C. butyricum can colonize tumors and locally produce butyrate to suppress the IL-6/JAK2/STAT3 pathway, subsequently reducing immunosuppressive cell infiltration and boosting cytotoxic CD8⁺ T cell function to restore tumoral sensitivity to anti-PD-1 therapy¹³. Furthermore, L. plantarum-derived indole-3-lactic acid (ILA) orchestrates a multi-layered epigenetic attack. ILA promotes IL-12 secretion in dendritic cells (DCs) to prime T-cell immunity, while ILA remodels chromatin in CD8⁺ T cells to enhance infiltration and cytotoxic activity⁵⁰. Capsular polysaccharides derived from Bacteroides uniformis bind to Lag-3 molecules on the cell surface of natural killer (NK) cells, activating cytotoxic function and enhancing tumor cell killing⁷⁴. Importantly, this pathway synergizes with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy to further strengthen immune responses against the immunologically “cold” tumors⁷⁴. Moreover, short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), such as acetate and butyrate, have been reported to directly enhance antitumor NK cell activity in vitro. SCFAs promote the release of NK-derived extracellular vesicles, which can carry cytotoxic cargo, while reducing secretion of the immunosuppressive cytokine, IL-10⁷⁵.

Probiotic-derived metabolites can alleviate the immunosuppressive state of the TIME. For example, metabolites from L. plantarum can reprogram tumor-associated macrophages from a pro-tumor M2 phenotype to an anti-tumor M1 state by activating the NLRP3 inflammasome⁷⁶. Lysates of L. acidophilus, when combined with anti-CTLA-4 therapy, can increase the number of CD8⁺ T cells, while reducing CD4⁺CD25⁺Foxp3⁺ regulatory T cells and the M2 phenotype of macrophages within the TIME⁷⁷. Lactobacillus gallinarum secretes indole-3-carboxylic acid that diminishes recruitment of Foxp3⁺CD25⁺ regulatory T cells and enhances CD8⁺ T cell function, synergistically augmenting the inhibitory effect of anti-PD-1 antibodies on tumor growth⁴⁵. In addition, SCFAs suppress the accumulation of MDSCs in tumor tissues, which alleviates MDSC-mediated immunosuppression and promotes CD8⁺ T cell infiltration and activation⁷⁸. Notably, tyrosine kinase inhibitors can also increase the abundance of Muribaculum and the metabolite, urocanic acid (UCA), to potentiate cancer immunotherapy efficacy. Increased UCA inhibits p65 signaling in tumor endothelial cells to reduce MDSC recruitment via the CXCL1-CXCR2 axis, ultimately suppressing colorectal tumorigenesis⁷⁹. Collectively, these findings demonstrate how microbial metabolites can reshape the TIME at cellular, metabolic, and epigenetic levels to potentiate anticancer immunity (Figure 2).

Probiotic signatures as biomarkers in CRC

Less

The diagnosis and prognosis of CRC currently depend on biomarkers derived from host genetics and gene expression profiles, which often lack sufficient sensitivity for early detection. In contrast, the gut microbiota constitutes a dynamic ecosystem deeply implicated in CRC development, representing a vast reservoir of untapped biomarker potential. Specifically, defined shifts in probiotic communities are increasingly associated with disease status. Therefore, a biomarker platform that combines these CRC-specific microbial alterations with established clinical markers could revolutionize diagnostic sensitivity and provide a novel means of monitoring therapeutic efficacy.

Probiotic signatures as diagnostic markers

Current diagnostic research into gut microbiota for CRC and colorectal adenomas (CRAs) has predominantly focused on pathogenic bacteria (e.g., F. nucleatum), metabolites, or a combination with host genetic markers. While these microbial features are often examined as auxiliary tools, a parallel and compelling diagnostic signal lies in the progressive depletion of probiotic taxa during CRC progression. This decline is driven by multiple interrelated factors, including elevated oxidative stress within the tumor tissues that inhibits survival of strict anaerobes^80,81, tumor-associated metabolic alterations that lead to ecological niche loss⁸², and remodeling of the host immune microenvironment that excludes some probiotics and impedes stable colonization^83,84. Such antagonistic ecological dynamics suggest that the loss of beneficial microbes represents a potent yet underexploited biomarker class. The diagnostic power of this ecological shift is evident when probiotic signatures are formally quantified. For example, a simple abundance ratio of F. nucleatum-to-beneficial taxa (F. prausnitzii, Bifidobacterium, and Lactobacillus) can significantly improve diagnostic specificity over single-pathogen assays⁸⁵. More sophisticated, multi-taxa classifiers that incorporate probiotic genera have demonstrated strong performance. Specifically, a seven-genus panel, including Lactobacillus, achieved an AUC of 0.84 for CRC detection⁸⁶, while a six-taxon panel containing Roseburia inulinivorans differentiated CRA from CRC with an AUC of 0.93⁹. In specific contexts like obesity-associated CRC, the marked reduction of F. prausnitzii has been a key discriminative feature, reinforcing the broader role as a biomarker for intestinal health^87,88.

Despite this promise, probiotic signatures remain underrepresented in diagnostic models. A primary challenge is the inconsistent loss across CRC stages, complicating the development of universal single-taxon biomarkers. Furthermore, gut microbiota composition is profoundly confounded by host-specific factors, including environment, genetics, medication history, and demographic variables, like gender, as illustrated by the hormone-dependent colonization of Carnobacterium maltaromaticum⁸⁹. Another key limitation is the lack of disease specificity because the reduction of probiotic taxa is not unique to CRC. For example, depletion of F. prausnitzii is commonly observed in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and other metabolic disorders⁹⁰. Such overlapping dysbiosis patterns may undermine the diagnostic specificity of probiotic signatures and increase the risk of false positives. Nevertheless, CRC and IBD exhibit quantifiable differences in microbial structure^90,91, suggesting that diagnostic accuracy could be improved through multi-feature microbial profiling rather than reliance on single taxa. Therefore, these observations highlight a critical diagnostic strategy in which probiotic signatures ae integrated into composite multi-marker classifiers. Such models can account for ecologic dynamics (pathogen rise and probiotic decline), stage-specific variability, and host confounders, moving beyond auxiliary use to establish a robust, ecology-informed framework for CRC and CRA detection. From a translational perspective, routine clinical implementation of probiotic signatures faces ongoing challenges in standardization, cost-effectiveness, and analytic reproducibility, despite the encouraging feasibility demonstrated by fecal microbiome analysis using quantitative PCR and metagenomic sequencing. Future efforts should therefore focus on establishing standardized testing workflows and diagnostic thresholds, as well as validating the robustness, alone or in combination with existing biomarkers, across diverse populations through large-scale prospective studies to facilitate clinical adoption.

Probiotic signatures as predictive markers

In addition to diagnostics, fecal microbial signatures are emerging as valuable predictors of therapeutic response and clinical outcomes in CRC. The predictive relevance is particularly pronounced in the context of immunotherapy, in which the composition of the gut microbiota can critically influence efficacy. A growing body of evidence indicates that favorable responses to ICIs and prolonged survival are strongly associated with the enrichment of specific probiotic taxa and the metabolic byproducts, rather than solely the depletion of pathogens. Pan-cancer analyses have consistently shown that ICI responders harbor increased abundances of bacteria, such as A. muciniphila⁹², F. prausnitzii¹¹, and L. reuteri⁹³, as well as fungi with probiotic-like functions (e.g., Schizosaccharomyces⁹⁴ and Nemania serpens¹¹). In parallel, elevated levels of related metabolites, such as indole-3-aldehyde (I3A)⁹³, galanthamine ketone⁹⁵, and hippuric acid⁷⁹ are significantly associated with improved prognosis. Butyrate-producing strains (Agathobacter M104/1 and Blautia SR1/5) have been identified as potential prognostic indicators for combined cetuximab and avelumab therapy in CRC⁹⁶. These findings highlight a key insight, i.e., therapeutic success may depend more on the active presence of beneficial microbes than on the absence of harmful microbes.

Probiotic signatures also hold promise in predicting susceptibility to immune-related adverse events (irAEs) during immunotherapy⁹⁷. In patients with metastatic melanoma receiving anti-CTLA-4 therapy, those with higher baseline abundances of Bacteroidetes exhibited greater resistance to ICI-induced colitis⁹⁸. In contrast, microbial profiles enriched in Firmicutes were associated with treatment-related colitis⁹⁹. Therefore, observations suggest that incorporating microbial signatures into risk stratification models may enable early detection and preventive interventions, thereby expanding the therapeutic window of ICIs.

Outside of immunotherapy, the direct predictive role of probiotics is less clear. Probiotics are primarily documented for their role in mitigating treatment-related side effects in chemotherapy¹⁰⁰ with limited evidence supporting a substantial direct impact on chemotherapeutic efficacy or overall survival. Nonetheless, certain probiotic signatures may hold broader prognostic value, as illustrated by the association between higher abundance of Carnobacterium maltaromaticum and improved outcomes, particularly in female patients⁸⁹. Overall, probiotic signatures and the metabolic products represent a promising, yet underdeveloped, component of predictive oncology. Integrating these features into models of therapeutic responsiveness, especially for immunotherapy, offers a feasible strategy to refine patient stratification and personalize treatment. However, as with diagnostic applications, research in this area remains nascent. Translating these insights into clinical practice will require more comprehensive, longitudinally designed studies and multi-omics integration to validate and standardize microbial predictors across diverse patient populations and treatment regimens.

Strategies for microbiota-based combination therapies

Less

The gut microbiota functions as a dynamic and resilient ecosystem, the composition of which is continually shaped by host genetics, immune activity, and environmental exposures. Although specific probiotic supplementation represents a validated approach for modulating microbial populations, conventional single-strain interventions frequently overlook the ecologic diversity and functional redundancy inherent to the native community. To achieve durable and clinically meaningful outcomes, therapeutic strategies must advance beyond monotherapy toward precisely designed, multifaceted interventions that engage the microbiota as an integrated system. The design of such consortia should be guided by the complementary mechanisms of action and the natural co-occurrence relationships among the selected strains.

Modulating microbiomes to enhance immunotherapy

The gut microbiota is a critical determinant of immunotherapy efficacy in CRC. A compelling illustration of this is the finding that fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) from healthy donors restores anti-PD-1 responsiveness in murine CRC models, whereas FMT from non-responding CRC patients fails to do so¹⁰¹. This finding highlights the therapeutic potential of modulating the microbiome with probiotic supplementation emerging as a promising strategy to overcome resistance to ICIs (Table 3). Probiotics exert direct antitumor effects and reprogram the TIME. For example, Lactobacillus paracasei sh2020, which has been isolated from healthy human feces, upregulates the chemokine, CXCL10, within tumors and enhances recruitment of cytotoxic CD8⁺ T cells and synergizing with anti-PD-1 therapy¹⁰¹. Similarly, the surface protein, SecD, of C. butyricum binds to glucose-regulated protein 78 (GRP78) on CRC cells, inactivating the downstream PI3K-AKT-NF-κB pathway¹³. This interaction suppresses the production of the immunosuppressive cytokine, IL-6, which alleviates the functional inhibition of CD8⁺ T cells and reduces the infiltration of TAMs, thereby creating a more permissive environment for immunotherapy¹³.

In addition to direct cellular interactions, probiotic-derived metabolites systemically potentiate antitumor immunity. SCFAs, like butyrate, produced by genera (Roseburia and Clostridium) directly enhance the cytotoxic function of CD8⁺ T cells, thereby synergizing with anti-PD-1 therapy^13,29. Mechanistically, butyrate modulates T-cell receptor (TCR) signaling and engages Toll-like receptor 5 (TLR-5) to activate NF-κB, amplifying T-cell effector capacity^29,107. Other microbial metabolites also fine-tune immune responses. Specifically, indole derivatives (e.g., indole-3-propionic acid and indole-3-carboxylic acid) influence T-cell stemness and differentiation^45,102,103, while B. pseudolongum utilizes the L-arginine pathway to drive the generation of tissue-resident memory CD8⁺ T cells, boosting anti-CTLA-4 efficacy¹⁰⁸. Notably, SCFAs, like butyrate and valerate esters, have also been shown in vitro to enhance the antitumor activity of engineered cell therapies, including chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells¹⁰⁹.

Probiotics further bridge innate and adaptive immunity by activating antigen-presenting cells. For example, the membrane protein, LIPOAF, from Alistipes fingoldii activates DCs via the TLR-2-NF-κB pathway, stimulating CXCL16 secretion and promoting CD8⁺ T-cell tumor infiltration¹⁰⁴. Similarly, outer membrane vesicles from A. muciniphila induce DC maturation, leading to more robust cytotoxic T-cell priming¹⁰⁵. At an ecologic level, probiotics can durably reshape the gut microbial community to sustain a pro-inflammatory, immune-active state. Synergistic effects are observed with combination approaches. Co-administration of C. butyricum and A. muciniphila more effectively restores a favorable microbiota composition, reduces systemic inflammation, and sensitizes tumors to anti-PD-L1 therapy than either probiotic alone¹⁰⁶.

Together, probiotics enhance ICI efficacy in CRC through the following multifaceted network of mechanisms: direct tumor targeting; metabolic reprogramming; innate immune activation; and ecologic restoration. This coordinated action helps convert immunologically “cold” tumors into “hot” tumors, offering a viable strategy to break immunotherapy resistance.

Modulating microbiomes to overcome chemoresistance

Chemotherapy, using agents, such as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), oxaliplatin, and irinotecan, remains a cornerstone of CRC treatment. However, the long-term success is frequently compromised by intrinsic or acquired chemoresistance. Emerging research has established the gut microbiome as a critical modulator of therapeutic efficacy, influencing resistance through diverse mechanisms (Table 4). Key insights have been derived from model systems and clinical observations. Studies involving Caenorhabditis elegans fed a bacterial diet revealed that microbial genetics directly alter host responses to chemotherapeutics¹¹⁴. For example, bacterial nucleotide metabolism genes have been shown to widely modulate the efficacy of drugs, like 5-FU, with cytotoxicity surprisingly mediated through bacterial ribonucleotide metabolism rather than solely through canonical host pathways¹¹⁴. An intact microbiota is essential for optimal therapy in mammalian systems. Depletion of commensal bacteria in mouse models impairs the response to both platinum-based chemotherapy and immunotherapy¹¹⁵. This finding is linked to dysfunctional tumor-infiltrating myeloid cells, which exhibit reduced cytokine production and cytotoxic activity. Clinical data further underscore this relationship, revealing significant differences in gut microbial composition between chemotherapy responders and non-responders. Specific pathogens, such as F. nucleatum and enterotoxigenic B. fragilis (ETBF), have been directly implicated in promoting chemoresistance^41,42. Targeted modulation of the microbiome presents a promising therapeutic strategy. Phage-based targeting of ETBF successfully reverses chemoresistance in murine CRC models⁴². Furthermore, the administration of beneficial microbes, such as B. bifidum, in combination with 5-FU has been shown to enhance therapeutic efficacy significantly compared to chemotherapy alone¹¹⁰. Collectively, these results indicate that modulation of the gut microbiota represents a potential strategy to improve chemotherapy outcomes.

Despite promising data, few large-scale clinical trials have directly validated the ability of probiotics to enhance the anticancer efficacy of chemotherapy in humans, as most evidence still relies on animal models. Moreover, current research largely focuses on mitigating adverse effects rather than directly enhancing anticancer efficacy. Oral probiotics significantly reduced the risk and severity of chemotherapy-induced diarrhea and oral mucositis in a meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials (1,013 patients) with benefits notably observed in Asian patients and linked to greater bacterial species diversity¹¹⁶. Another meta-analysis involving 8 studies (633 patients) demonstrated that probiotics significantly reduced chemoradiotherapy-induced diarrhea and improved pain, dyspnea, and insomnia¹¹⁷. Moreover, supplementation with L. rhamnosus GG or Lactobacillus casei (L. casei) has been shown to reduce chemotherapy-induced intestinal mucosal injury and diarrhea^111,112. Similarly, probiotic mixtures containing Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium spp. have been reported to alleviate severe diarrhea associated with irinotecan treatment¹¹³. The protective mechanisms likely involve probiotic-derived metabolites that help strengthen the intestinal barrier and restore microbial homeostasis. Thus, clinical evidence strongly supports the use of probiotics for maintaining intestinal integrity and improving patient tolerance to chemotherapy. However, whether probiotics can directly potentiate chemotherapy and overcome tumor resistance in patients remains an open question. The molecular and immunologic mechanisms underlying such potential synergy are not well-defined and warrant focused investigation. It is worth noting that chemotherapy-induced neutropenia could substantially increase systemic infections and the risk of sepsis caused by microbial pathogens. Under such conditions, even bacteria traditionally regarded as probiotics, such as Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus, may cause opportunistic infections in immunocompromised hosts¹¹⁸. Future efforts should therefore prioritize well-designed prospective studies to define risk stratification for live microbial therapies under varying degrees of chemotherapy intensity and neutropenia, enabling the development of clearer and safer clinical guidelines.

Dietary and lifestyle modulation of the microbiome

Unhealthy lifestyle patterns are a major source of gut microbial dysbiosis and chronic, low-grade inflammation are key drivers of CRC pathogenesis. Factors, such as high-fat diets¹¹⁹, smoking¹²⁰, and disrupted circadian rhythms¹²¹ can drive the enrichment of pathogenic bacteria, undermine intestinal barrier function, and establish an immunosuppressive tumor niche, which collectively accelerate disease progression. Conversely, positive lifestyle modifications can restore microbial homeostasis and support cancer therapy¹²². For example, regular physical activity is associated with a reduced risk of CRC, in part by enriching SCFA-producing bacteria and enhancing overall microbial diversity¹²³.

A meta-analysis of over 2.2 million individuals showed that adherence to the Mediterranean diet is associated with a 16% reduction in CRC risk¹²⁴. Similarly, high-fiber diets have shown a consistent inverse association with CRC incidence across multiple international studies¹²⁵. These protective effects are primarily attributed to increased dietary fiber intake, which promotes the production of SCFAs, such as butyrate, by the gut microbiota, thereby exerting anti-inflammatory and antitumor effects¹²⁶. Thus, targeted dietary strategies offer a more direct route to modulate the microbiome for therapeutic benefit. A ketogenic diet (KD) can suppress CRC tumorigenesis by shifting microbial communities to increase the production of stearic acid¹²⁷. This effect can be mimicked by the ketone body, β-hydroxybutyrate (BHB), which activates the receptor Hcar2 on colonic cells, induces Hopx expression, and subsequently inhibits crypt proliferation and tumor growth¹²⁸. Similarly, fasting-mimicking diets (FMDs) have emerged as a potent adjunct to immunotherapy^108,129. Combining FMD with anti-PD-1 therapy has been shown to inhibit CRC progression in preclinical models by increasing Lactobacillus abundance, reducing proliferation and angiogenesis, and boosting intratumoral CD8⁺ T-cell infiltration¹²⁹. Another mechanism involves FMD-induced enrichment of B. pseudolongum, which enhances the efficacy of anti-CTLA-4 therapy by producing the metabolite, L-arginine, and promoting tissue-resident memory CD8⁺ T cells¹⁰⁸. These findings underscore that dietary and lifestyle interventions are powerful tools for reshaping the gut microbiome (Table 5).

Carcinogens in food pose a significant health risk. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB), probiotic microorganisms that ferment lactose into lactate, have gained attention as food additives capable of counteracting carcinogenic compounds. Some LAB strains do so through direct physical binding, thereby avoiding the re-pollution associated with toxic degradation byproducts¹³¹. This binding primarily involves cell wall components with peptidoglycan serving as the main site and is strain-specific. For example, Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium spp. show potential against common carcinogens, such as mycotoxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, heterocyclic amines, and phthalic acid esters¹³². However, it is noteworthy that the gut microbiota can also contribute to metabolic activation of some pro-carcinogens. Roje et al.¹³³ reported that the gut microbiota can metabolize environmental nitrosamine carcinogens, such as N-butyl-N-(4-hydroxybutyl)-nitrosamine and its derivatives, via bacterial β-glucuronidase-mediated deconjugation and oxidation, converting environmental nitrosamine carcinogens into more toxic metabolites. These metabolites accumulate systemically, reach distal organs, such as the urinary bladder, and drive tumor formation. This effect is causally linked to specific bacterial strains (e.g., Lactobacillus), varies across human donor microbiomes, and extends to related nitrosamines¹³³. Together, the interactions between the gut microbiota and dietary/environmental carcinogens are complex, underscoring the importance of developing novel microbiome-targeted prophylactic approaches.

Reshaping gut microbiota dysbiosis modulated by host genetics and gene expression

The composition of the gut microbiota is shaped by a complex interplay of exogenous factors and intrinsic host genetics. Integrated analyses using metagenomic sequencing of fecal samples with host genomic and transcriptomic profiling have established significant associations between specific microbial communities, host genetic variants, and gene expression patterns^134,135. These genetic influences can define an individual’s microbial landscape with direct consequences for health and disease. Specific host genotypes are powerful drivers of microbial community structure. For example, CRCs harboring a KRAS p.G12D mutation exhibit a distinct microbial niche enriched with F. nucleatum and B. fragilis, a combination that promotes tumorigenesis in murine models^136,137. Furthermore, a host single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP rs2355016) within the KCNJ11 gene correlates strongly with the abundance of F. nucleatum¹³⁸. Carriers of the risk allele demonstrate reduced KCNJ11 expression and enhanced mucosal adhesion of F. nucleatum, accelerating CRC progression¹³⁸. In addition to oncogenes, genes regulating host defense also shape microbiota. Systemic or intestinal epithelial knockout of Mettl9 impairs secretory functions, leading to pathologic over-colonization by Candida albicans, barrier disruption, and increased mortality¹³⁹. Depending on the host context, inflammatory status, the presence of live vs. non-viable components, and strain specificity, A. muciniphila can exert protective or pathogenic effects^140,141. Loss of group 3 innate lymphoid cells (ILC3s) triggers IL-22-dependent intestinal galactosylation, fostering the expansion of A. muciniphila within the mucus layer. This effect disrupts microbial equilibrium and heightens susceptibility to S. typhimurium infection¹⁴². Similarly, functional loss of the Fut2 gene, which governs epithelial fucosylation, compromises gut homeostasis. Notably, fecal microbiota transfer from Fut2-deficient mice or inoculation with poorly fucosylated B. fragilis is sufficient to confer colitis susceptibility in recipients¹⁴³. Such genetically influenced dysbiosis is a key driver in diseases, like early-onset CRC. This finding provides a compelling rationale for combining probiotics with genotype-targeted therapies. In KRAS-mutant settings, the probiotic, Parabacteroides distasonis, competitively excludes pro-tumorigenic F. nucleatum, and oral administration attenuates CRC progression in mice¹³⁶. Advanced delivery systems are enhancing precision. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) from L. acidophilus loaded with TNF-α siRNA, enable colon-specific gene silencing, reshaping the microbiota and metabolite profile to restore homeostasis in IBD models¹⁴⁴. In another approach, engineered Pediococcus pentosaceus was developed as a safe lactic acid bacterium delivery vehicle expressing the secreted anticancer protein, P8, which has been reported to downregulate cyclin B1 and Cdk1¹⁴⁵. Oral administration of P8 suppresses tumor development in murine CRC xenografts and colitis-associated CRC and restores gut microbiota diversity¹⁴⁶. Collectively, these strategies underscore the significant translational potential of precisely modulating the microbiota based on host genetic context to improve therapeutic outcomes (Table 6). However, the genotype-specific mechanisms governing host-microbe interactions in CRC require deeper characterization. Furthermore, the combined application of probiotics and gene-targeted agents demands rigorous optimization of dosing, safety, and delivery platforms to realize the full clinical promise.

Conclusions and future perspectives

Less

Significant progress has been made in understanding the role of the gut microbiota in CRC pathogenesis. While recent studies have defined the functions of several key probiotics, the studies have captured only a fraction of the complex functional capacity of the microbiome. The advent of affordable high-throughput sequencing has dramatically expanded our catalog of microbial functions and large-scale population cohorts have identified structural signatures of CRC-associated dysbiosis. These microbial profiles are increasingly recognized as prognostic biomarkers, opening new avenues for microbiome-based therapeutics. Furthermore, technologies, such as nanopore sequencing^148,149 and microbial single-cell genomics^150,151, now enable strain-level resolution, allowing researchers to assemble genomes, annotate genes, and dissect the mechanisms of dysbiosis. This granular view facilitates the mapping of strain-level interactions, both cooperative and antagonistic, and paves the way for precisely targeted microbial interventions. However, the pharmacologic and toxicological safety of live probiotic therapies requires thorough clinical evaluation before widespread adoption.

A critical gap remains in understanding the dynamic nature of the gut microbiome, which is shaped by host genetics, ethnicity, geography, diet, and circadian rhythms. Conventional analyses often fail to capture the stable, long-term ecologic processes that truly determine clinical outcomes. Addressing this gap requires more comprehensive studies with longitudinal monitoring to distinguish transient noise from clinically meaningful signals and to identify robust biomarkers suitable for clinical practice^152,153. Dynamic microbiome analysis that tracks changes in community structure and function during treatment may provide greater predictive value for therapeutic response and immune-related adverse events than single baseline measurements alone¹⁵⁴. Notably, stable temporal patterns, such as the recovery of microbial diversity or sustained colonization by specific probiotics, could serve as real-time biomarkers to guide adaptive therapeutic strategies. However, most studies focus on individual strains, failing to adequately assess intervention efficacy within this variable ecologic context. A recent study on obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) demonstrated that the therapeutic efficacy of A. muciniphila supplementation depends entirely on the baseline abundance¹⁵⁵. Similarly, circadian oscillations in microbiota can influence the tumor microenvironment, suggesting that time-specific administration may improve therapeutic outcomes¹²¹. Other underexplored dimensions include spatial heterogeneity, such as differences between tumor-associated microbiota and intestinal ecological niches, and the complex co-evolution of host and microbe during carcinogenesis. Techniques like multi-site sampling and spatial transcriptomic profiling¹⁵⁶ could elucidate these niche-specific patterns, guiding targeted modulation and potentially unlocking breakthroughs in cancer therapy.

Given the challenge of sustaining colonization by exogenous live probiotics and the associated risk of bacteremia, research has pivoted toward beneficial microbial metabolites and components from inactivated bacteria, which are collectively termed “postbiotics.” In parallel, “prebiotics,” host-indigestible substrates that selectively promote beneficial microbes, have gained prominence. Both strategies enhance intervention efficiency and have proven effective in regulating metabolic diseases. The stable structures and use of non-viable components offer practical advantages, including compatibility with concurrent antibiotic therapies. The synergistic combination of prebiotics and probiotics, known as “synbiotics,” further improves probiotic viability and promotes long-term intestinal homeostasis more effectively than single-strain supplements. However, the specific utility in CRC prevention and treatment warrants deeper investigation. Importantly, it is necessary to critically acknowledge the inherent limitations of animal models, which are used in most studies cited in this review for mechanistic insights and preliminary translational evaluation. These limitations include, but are not limited to, substantial differences in immune system architecture, gut microbiota composition, metabolic pathways, and environmental exposures relative to humans. Such discrepancies may affect the translatability of findings and could lead to either overestimation or underestimation of probiotic effects in clinical contexts. Careful consideration of these limitations is therefore essential when interpreting preclinical data and designing subsequent human studies.

In summary, probiotic intervention represents a promising frontier in biotherapy for CRC. Future progress will hinge on integrating advanced bioinformatics with molecular biology to fully decipher the therapeutic potential of the gut microbiota. This knowledge will be crucial for refining gene-targeted therapies, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy, ultimately enabling the development of precise microbial biomarkers and more effective, personalized strategies for the prevention and treatment of CRC.

Funding

Less

This project was supported by the RGC-GRF Hong Kong (Grant Nos. 24103225 and 14104924), the RGC-CRF Hong Kong (Grant Nos. C4008-23W and C4042-24GF), the National Natural Science Foundation of China [NSFC] (Grant Nos. 82573882 and 82272989), the Health and Medical Research Fund [HMRF] (Grant No. 22210032), and the CUHK Direct Grant for Research (Grant No. 2025.090).

References

Less

Jiang F,Zhao J,Sun J,Chen W,Zhao Y,Zhou S, et al.Impact of ambient air pollution on colorectal cancer risk and survival: insights from a prospective cohort and epigenetic Mendelian randomization study.EBioMedicine.2024; 103: 105126.

Papadimitriou N,Kim A,Kawaguchi ES,Morrison J,Diez-Obrero V,Albanes D, et al.Genome-wide interaction study of dietary intake of fibre, fruits, and vegetables with risk of colorectal cancer.EBioMedicine.2024; 104: 105146.

Su H,Cheung H,Lau HC,Chen H,Zhang X,Qin N, et al.Crosstalk between gut microbiota and RNA N6-methyladenosine modification in cancer.FEMS Microbiol Rev.2023; 47: fuad036.

Hou K,Wu ZX,Chen XY,Wang JQ,Zhang D,Xiao C, et al.Microbiota in health and diseases.Signal Transduct Target Ther.2022; 7: 135.

Dai Z,Coker OO,Nakatsu G,Wu WKK,Zhao L,Chen Z, et al.Multi-cohort analysis of colorectal cancer metagenome identified altered bacteria across populations and universal bacterial markers.Microbiome.2018; 6: 70.

Thomas AM,Manghi P,Asnicar F,Pasolli E,Armanini F,Zolfo M, et al.Metagenomic analysis of colorectal cancer datasets identifies cross-cohort microbial diagnostic signatures and a link with choline degradation.Nat Med.2019; 25: 667–78.

Wirbel J,Pyl PT,Kartal E,Zych K,Kashani A,Milanese A, et al.Meta-analysis of fecal metagenomes reveals global microbial signatures that are specific for colorectal cancer.Nat Med.2019; 25: 679–89.

Wong CC,Yu J.Gut microbiota in colorectal cancer development and therapy.Nat Rev Clin Oncol.2023; 20: 429–52.

Coker OO,Liu C,Wu WKK,Wong SH,Jia W,Sung JJY, et al.Altered gut metabolites and microbiota interactions are implicated in colorectal carcinogenesis and can be non-invasive diagnostic biomarkers.Microbiome.2022; 10: 35.

10.

Chen F,Dai X,Zhou CC,Li KX,Zhang YJ,Lou XY, et al.Integrated analysis of the faecal metagenome and serum metabolome reveals the role of gut microbiome-associated metabolites in the detection of colorectal cancer and adenoma.Gut.2022; 71: 1315–25.

11.

Lin Y,Xie M,Lau HC,Zeng R,Zhang R,Wang L, et al.Effects of gut microbiota on immune checkpoint inhibitors in multi-cancer and as microbial biomarkers for predicting therapeutic response.Med.2025; 6: 100530.

12.

Chen Y,Fang H,Chen H,Liu X,Zhao J,Stanton C, et al.Bifidobacterium inhibits the progression of colorectal tumorigenesis in mice through fatty acid isomerization and gut microbiota modulation.Gut Microbes.2025; 17: 2464945.

13.

Xie M,Yuan K,Zhang Y,Zhang Y,Zhang R,Gao J, et al.Tumor-resident probiotic Clostridium butyricum improves aPD-1 efficacy in colorectal cancer models by inhibiting IL-6-mediated immunosuppression.Cancer Cell.2025; 43: 1885–901.e10.

14.

Anderson RC,Cookson AL,McNabb WC,Park Z,McCann MJ,Kelly WJ, et al.Lactobacillus plantarum MB452 enhances the function of the intestinal barrier by increasing the expression levels of genes involved in tight junction formation.BMC Microbiol.2010; 10: 316.

15.

Su ACY,Ding X,Lau HCH,Kang X,Li Q,Wang X, et al.Lactococcus lactis Hkyull 10 suppresses colorectal tumourigenesis and restores gut microbiota through its generated alpha-mannosidase.Gut.2024; 73: 1478–88.

16.

Janney A,Powrie F,Mann EH.Host–microbiota maladaptation in colorectal cancer.Nature.2020; 585: 509–17.

17.

Wang K,Ding Y,Xu C,Hao M,Li H,Ding L.Cldn-7 deficiency promotes experimental colitis and associated carcinogenesis by regulating intestinal epithelial integrity.Oncoimmunology.2021; 10: 1923910.

18.

Velcich A,Yang W,Heyer J,Fragale A,Nicholas C,Viani S, et al.Colorectal cancer in mice genetically deficient in the mucin Muc2.Science.2002; 295: 1726–9.

19.

Wang J,Ji H,Wang S,Liu H,Zhang W,Zhang D, et al.Probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum promotes intestinal barrier function by strengthening the epithelium and modulating gut microbiota.Front Microbiol.2018; 9: 1953.

20.

Qin HL,Shen TY,Gao ZG,Fan XB,Hang XM,Jiang YQ, et al.Effect of lactobacillus on the gut microflora and barrier function of the rats with abdominal infection.World J Gastroenterol.2005; 11: 2591–6.

21.

Patel RM,Myers LS,Kurundkar AR,Maheshwari A,Nusrat A,Lin PW.Probiotic bacteria induce maturation of intestinal claudin 3 expression and barrier function.Am J Pathol.2012; 180: 626–35.

22.

Qi-Xiang M,Yang F,Ze-Hua H,Nuo-Ming Y,Rui-Long W,Bin-Qiang X, et al.Intestinal TLR4 deletion exacerbates acute pancreatitis through gut microbiota dysbiosis and paneth cells deficiency.Gut Microbes.2022; 14: 2112882.

23.

Guo S,Gillingham T,Guo Y,Meng D,Zhu W,Walker WA, et al.Secretions of Bifidobacterium infantis and Lactobacillus acidophilus protect intestinal epithelial barrier function.J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr.2017; 64: 404–12.

24.

Bergmann KR,Liu SX,Tian R,Kushnir A,Turner JR,Li HL, et al.Bifidobacteria stabilize claudins at tight junctions and prevent intestinal barrier dysfunction in mouse necrotizing enterocolitis.Am J Pathol.2013; 182: 1595–606.

25.

Abdulqadir R,Al-Sadi R,Gupta Y,Rawat M,Ma T.Probiotic bacteria Bifidobacterium bifidum upregulation of intestinal epithelial tight junction barrier is mediated by TLR-2/TLR-6 receptor complex activation of occludin gene.NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes.2026; 12: 37.

26.

Zyrek AA,Cichon C,Helms S,Enders C,Sonnenborn U,Schmidt MA.Molecular mechanisms underlying the probiotic effects of Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 involve ZO-2 and PKCζ redistribution resulting in tight junction and epithelial barrier repair.Cell Microbiol.2007; 9: 804–16.

27.

Peng M,Liu J,Liang Z.Probiotic Bacillus subtilis CW14 reduces disruption of the epithelial barrier and toxicity of ochratoxin A to Caco-2 cells.Food Chem Toxicol.2019; 126: 25–33.

28.

He KY,Lei XY,Wu DH,Zhang L,Li JQ,Li QT, et al.Akkermansia muciniphila protects the intestine from irradiation-induced injury by secretion of propionic acid.Gut Microbes.2023; 15: 2293312.

29.

Kang X,Liu C,Ding Y,Ni Y,Ji F,Lau HCH, et al.Roseburia intestinalis generated butyrate boosts anti-PD-1 efficacy in colorectal cancer by activating cytotoxic CD8⁺ T cells.Gut.2023; 72: 2112–22.

30.

Wang X,Li Y,Wang X,Wang R,Hao Y,Ren F, et al.Faecalibacterium prausnitzii supplementation prevents intestinal barrier injury and gut microflora dysbiosis induced by sleep deprivation.Nutrients.2024; 16: 1100.

31.

Zhao X,Yang J,Ju Z,Wu J,Wang L,Lin H, et al.Clostridium butyricum ameliorates Salmonella enteritis induced inflammation by enhancing and improving immunity of the intestinal epithelial barrier at the intestinal mucosal level.Front Microbiol.2020; 11: 299.

32.

Du W,Xu H,Mei X,Cao X,Gong L,Wu Y, et al.Probiotic Bacillus enhance the intestinal epithelial cell barrier and immune function of piglets.Benef Microbes.2018; 9: 743–54.

33.

Haque M,Kaminsky L,Abdulqadir R,Engers J,Kovtunov E,Rawat M, et al.Lactobacillus acidophilus inhibits the TNF-α-induced increase in intestinal epithelial tight junction permeability via a TLR-2 and PI3K-dependent inhibition of NF-κB activation.Front Immunol.2024; 15: 1348010.

34.

Hsieh CY,Osaka T,Moriyama E,Date Y,Kikuchi J,Tsuneda S.Strengthening of the intestinal epithelial tight junction by Bifidobacterium bifidum.Physiol Rep.2015; 3: e12327.

35.

Zheng J,Ahmad AA,Yang C,Liang Z,Shen W,Liu J, et al.Orally administered Lactobacillus rhamnosus cy12 alleviates dss-induced colitis in mice by restoring the intestinal barrier and inhibiting the TLR4-MyD88-NF-κB pathway via intestinal microbiota modulation.J Agric Food Chem.2024; 72: 9102–16.

36.

Ferris MM,Subitoni Antonio L,Al-Sadi R.Probiotics and the intestinal tight junction barrier function.Front Cell Dev Biol.2025; 13: 1671152.

37.

Wong SH,Zhao L,Zhang X,Nakatsu G,Han J,Xu W, et al.Gavage of fecal samples from patients with colorectal cancer promotes intestinal carcinogenesis in germ-free and conventional mice.Gastroenterology.2017; 153: 1621–33.e6.

38.

Long X,Wong CC,Tong L,Chu ESH,Ho Szeto C,Go MYY, et al.Peptostreptococcus anaerobius promotes colorectal carcinogenesis and modulates tumour immunity.Nat Microbiol.2019; 4: 2319–30.

39.

Cui W,Guo M,Liu D,Xiao P,Yang C,Huang H, et al.Gut microbial metabolite facilitates colorectal cancer development via ferroptosis inhibition.Nat Cell Biol.2024; 26: 124–37.

40.

Jans M,Kolata M,Blancke G,D’Hondt A,Gräf C,Ciers M, et al.Colibactin-driven colon cancer requires adhesin-mediated epithelial binding.Nature.2024; 635: 472–80.

41.

Yu T,Guo F,Yu Y,Sun T,Ma D,Han J, et al.Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes chemoresistance to colorectal cancer by modulating autophagy.Cell.2017; 170: 548–63.e16.

42.

Ding X,Ting NL,Wong CC,Huang P,Jiang L,Liu C, et al.Bacteroides fragilis promotes chemoresistance in colorectal cancer, and its elimination by phage VA7 restores chemosensitivity.Cell Host Microbe.2025; 33: 941–56.e10.

43.

Hibberd AA,Lyra A,Ouwehand AC,Rolny P,Lindegren H,Cedgård L, et al.Intestinal microbiota is altered in patients with colon cancer and modified by probiotic intervention.BMJ Open Gastroenterol.2017; 4: e000145.

44.

Li Q,Hu W,Liu WX,Zhao LY,Huang D,Liu XD, et al.Streptococcus thermophilus inhibits colorectal tumorigenesis through secreting β-galactosidase.Gastroenterology.2021; 160: 1179–93.e14.

45.

Sugimura N,Li Q,Chu ESH,Lau HCH,Fong W,Liu W, et al.Lactobacillus gallinarum modulates the gut microbiota and produces anti-cancer metabolites to protect against colorectal tumourigenesis.Gut.2021; 71: 2011–21.

46.

Ni Y,Wong VH,Tai WC,Li J,Wong WY,Lee MM, et al.A metagenomic study of the preventive effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG on intestinal polyp formation in Apc^Min/+ mice.J Appl Microbiol.2017; 122: 770–84.

47.

Berni Canani R,Sangwan N,Stefka AT,Nocerino R,Paparo L,Aitoro R, et al.Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG-supplemented formula expands butyrate-producing bacterial strains in food allergic infants.ISME J.2016; 10: 742–50.

48.

Liu X,Jin G,Tang Q,Huang S,Zhang Y,Sun Y, et al.Early life Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG colonisation inhibits intestinal tumour formation.Br J Cancer.2022; 126: 1421–31.

49.

Wang T,Zheng J,Dong S,Ismael M,Shan Y,Wang X, et al.Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus LS8 ameliorates azoxymethane/dextran sulfate sodium-induced colitis-associated tumorigenesis in mice via regulating gut microbiota and inhibiting inflammation.Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins.2022; 14: 947–59.

50.

Zhang Q,Zhao Q,Li T,Lu L,Wang F,Zhang H, et al.Lactobacillus plantarum-derived indole-3-lactic acid ameliorates colorectal tumorigenesis via epigenetic regulation of CD8⁺ T cell immunity.Cell Metab.2023; 35: 943–60.e9.

51.

Zhou Z,Yang M,Fang H,Zhang B,Ma Y,Li Y, et al.Tailoring a functional synthetic microbial community alleviates Fusobacterium nucleatum-infected colorectal cancer via ecological control.Adv Sci (Weinh).2025; 12: e14232.

52.

Tanoue T,Morita S,Plichta DR,Skelly AN,Suda W,Sugiura Y, et al.A defined commensal consortium elicits CD8 T cells and anti-cancer immunity.Nature.2019; 565: 600–5.

53.

Furuichi M,Kawaguchi T,Pust MM,Yasuma-Mitobe K,Plichta DR,Hasegawa N, et al.Commensal consortia decolonize Enterobacteriaceae via ecological control.Nature.2024; 633: 878–86.

54.

Zhang L,Zhang J,Wei Y,Hu W,Liu G,Zeng H, et al.Microbiome-wide association studies reveal correlations between the structure and metabolism of the rhizosphere microbiome and disease resistance in cassava.Plant Biotechnol J.2021; 19: 689–701.

55.

Cong L,Zhou Y,Zhang Y,Mao S,Chen C,Wang L, et al.BTS1-knockout Saccharomyces cerevisiae with broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity through lactic acid accumulation.Front Cell Infect Microbiol.2025; 15: 1494149.

56.

Wu Y,Ling Z,Peng L,Wang X,He Y,Khan A, et al.Vitamin B₆ form produced by Lactobacillus induces metabolic disorder and suppresses multi-pathogenic bacteria.Commun Biol.2025; 9: 82.

57.

Shaw C,Weimer BC,Gann R,Desai PT,Shah JD.The Yin and Yang of pathogens and probiotics: interplay between Salmonella enterica sv. Typhimurium and Bifidobacterium infantis during co-infection.Front Microbiol.2024; 15: 1387498.

58.

Deriu E,Liu JZ,Pezeshki M,Edwards RA,Ochoa RJ,Contreras H, et al.Probiotic bacteria reduce Salmonella Typhimurium intestinal colonization by competing for iron.Cell Host Microbe.2013; 14: 26–37.

59.

Vazquez-Gutierrez P,de Wouters T,Werder J,Chassard C,Lacroix C.High iron-sequestrating bifidobacteria inhibit enteropathogen growth and adhesion to intestinal epithelial cells in vitro.Front Microbiol.2016; 7: 1480.

60.

Piewngam P,Zheng Y,Nguyen TH,Dickey SW,Joo HS,Villaruz AE, et al.Pathogen elimination by probiotic Bacillus via signalling interference.Nature.2018; 562: 532–7.

61.

LaSarre B,Federle MJ.Exploiting quorum sensing to confuse bacterial pathogens.Microbiol Mol Biol Rev.2013; 77: 73–111.

62.

Zhang Y,Cao T,Wang Y,Yang R,Han Y,Li S, et al.Effects of viable and heat-inactivated Bifidobacterium longum D42 on proliferation and apoptosis of HT-29 human colon cancer cells.Foods.2024; 13: 958.

63.

Chang PV,Hao L,Offermanns S,Medzhitov R.The microbial metabolite butyrate regulates intestinal macrophage function via histone deacetylase inhibition.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.2014; 111: 2247–52.

64.

Yu DC,Waby JS,Chirakkal H,Staton CA,Corfe BM.Butyrate suppresses expression of neuropilin I in colorectal cell lines through inhibition of Sp1 transactivation.Mol Cancer.2010; 9: 276.

65.

Wang J,Zhao E,Geng B,Zhang W,Li Z,Liu Q, et al.Downregulation of UBB potentiates SP1/VEGFA-dependent angiogenesis in clear cell renal cell carcinoma.Oncogene.2024; 43: 1386–96.

66.

Qu R,Zhang Y,Kim B,Zeng G,Wang P,Shaoyong W, et al.Microbial riboflavin inhibits ceramide synthase 3 to lower ceramide (d18:1/26:0) and delay colorectal cancer progression.Cell Metab.2025; 37: 1852–69.e8.

67.

Hu M,Xu Y,Wang Y,Huang Z,Wang L,Zeng F, et al.Gut microbial-derived N-acetylmuramic acid alleviates colorectal cancer via the AKT1 pathway.Gut.2025; 74: 1230–45.

68.

Li F,Jiao X,Zhao J,Liao X,Wei Y,Li Q.Antitumor mechanisms of an exopolysaccharide from Lactobacillus fermentum on HT-29 cells and HT-29 tumor-bearing mice.Int J Biol Macromol.2022; 209: 552–62.

69.

Zhang J,Huang X,Zhang T,Gu C,Zuo W,Fu L, et al.Antitumorigenic potential of Lactobacillus-derived extracellular vesicles: p53 succinylation and glycolytic reprogramming in intestinal epithelial cells via SIRT5 modulation.Cell Biol Toxicol.2024; 40: 66.

70.

Schulthess J,Pandey S,Capitani M,Rue-Albrecht KC,Arnold I,Franchini F, et al.The short chain fatty acid butyrate imprints an antimicrobial program in macrophages.Immunity. 2019; 50: 432–45.e7.

71.

Eshleman EM,Rice T,Potter C,Waddell A,Hashimoto-Hill S,Woo V, et al.Microbiota-derived butyrate restricts tuft cell differentiation via histone deacetylase 3 to modulate intestinal type 2 immunity.Immunity.2024; 57: 319–32.e6.

72.

Liao Y,Yang R,Wang B,Ruan Y,Cui L,Yang J, et al.Mevalonate kinase inhibits anti-tumor immunity by impairing the tumor cell-intrinsic interferon response in microsatellite instability colorectal cancer.Oncogene.2025; 44: 944–57.

73.

Zhang W,Jin C,Liu S,Wan X,Li Y,Liu J, et al.Myeloid-derived suppressor cells and regulatory T cells in colorectal cancer: a synergistic immunosuppressive axis and emerging therapeutic opportunities.Front Immunol.2026; 17: 1757513.

74.

Weis AM,Bauer KM,Tang WW,Stephen-Victor E,Bell R,Brown DG, et al.A capsular polysaccharide from a healthy human microbiota member activates a Lag-3-NK cell axis to restrain colon cancer and augment immunotherapy.Cell Rep.2025; 44: 116172.

75.

Perez M,Buey B,Corral P,Giraldos D,Latorre E.Microbiota-derived short-chain fatty acids boost antitumoral natural killer cell activity.J Clin Med.2024; 13: 3885.

76.

Garavaglia B,Vallino L,Ferraresi A,Amoruso A,Pane M,Isidoro C.Probiotic-derived metabolites from Lactiplantibacillus plantarum OC01 reprogram tumor-associated macrophages to an inflammatory anti-tumoral phenotype: impact on colorectal cancer cell proliferation and migration.Biomedicines.2025; 13: 339.

77.

Zhuo Q,Yu B,Zhou J,Zhang J,Zhang R,Xie J, et al.Lysates of Lactobacillus acidophilus combined with CTLA-4-blocking antibodies enhance antitumor immunity in a mouse colon cancer model.Sci Rep.2019; 9: 20128.

78.

Zong G,Deng R,Pan Y,Liu M,Zhu H,Tao R, et al.Ginseng polysaccharides ameliorate colorectal tumorigenesis through Lachnospiraceae-mediated immune modulation.Int J Biol Macromol.2025; 307: 142015.

79.

Zhang M,Wei Z,Wei B,Lai C,Zong G,Tao E, et al.Microbiota-derived urocanic acid triggered by tyrosine kinase inhibitors potentiates cancer immunotherapy efficacy.Cell Host Microbe.2025; 33: 915–31.e9.

80.

Ionescu VA,Diaconu CC,Gheorghe G,Mihai MM,Diaconu CC,Bostan M, et al.Gut microbiota and colorectal cancer: a balance between risk and protection.Int J Mol Sci.2025; 26: 3733.

81.

Ferreira-Halder CV,Faria AVS,Andrade SS.Action and function of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii in health and disease.Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol.2017; 31: 643–8.

82.

Zhang S,Wen H,Chen Y,Ning J,Hu D,Dong Y, et al.Crosstalk between gut microbiota and tumor: tumors could cause gut dysbiosis and metabolic imbalance.Mol Oncol.2025; 19: 1707–24.

83.

Hansen J,Gulati A,Sartor RB.The role of mucosal immunity and host genetics in defining intestinal commensal bacteria.Curr Opin Gastroenterol.2010; 26: 564–71.

84.

Dolle L,Tran HQ,Etienne-Mesmin L,Chassaing B.Policing of gut microbiota by the adaptive immune system.BMC Med.2016; 14: 27.

85.

Guo S,Li L,Xu B,Li M,Zeng Q,Xiao H, et al.A simple and novel fecal biomarker for colorectal cancer: ratio of Fusobacterium Nucleatum to probiotics populations, based on their antagonistic effect.Clin Chem.2018; 64: 1327–37.

86.

Tesolato S,Vicente-Valor J,Paz-Cabezas M,Gómez-Garre D,Sánchez-Gonzalez S,Ortega-Hernández A, et al.Gut microbiota signatures with potential clinical usefulness in colorectal and non-small cell lung cancers.Biomedicines.2024; 12: 703.

87.

Li J,Chen Z,Wang Q,Du L,Yang Y,Guo F, et al.Microbial and metabolic profiles unveil mutualistic microbe-microbe interaction in obesity-related colorectal cancer.Cell Rep Med.2024; 5: 101429.

88.

Lopez-Siles M,Martinez-Medina M,Surís-Valls R,Aldeguer X,Sabat-Mir M,Duncan SH, et al.Changes in the abundance of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii phylogroups I and II in the intestinal mucosa of inflammatory bowel disease and patients with colorectal cancer.Inflamm Bowel Dis.2016; 22: 28–41.

89.

Li Q,Chan H,Liu WX,Liu CA,Zhou Y,Huang D, et al.Carnobacterium maltaromaticum boosts intestinal vitamin D production to suppress colorectal cancer in female mice.Cancer Cell.2023; 41: 1450–65.e8.

90.

Lopez-Siles M,Martinez-Medina M,Abellà C,Busquets D,Sabat-Mir M,Duncan SH, et al.Mucosa-associated Faecalibacterium prausnitzii phylotype richness is reduced in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.Appl Environ Microbiol.2015; 81: 7582–92.

91.

Masaadeh AH,Eletrebi M,Parajuli B,De Jager N,Bosch DE.Human colitis-associated colorectal carcinoma progression is accompanied by dysbiosis with enriched pathobionts.Gut Microbes.2025; 17: 2479774.

92.

Routy B,Le Chatelier E,Derosa L,Duong CPM,Alou MT,Daillère R, et al.Gut microbiome influences efficacy of PD-1-based immunotherapy against epithelial tumors.Science.2018; 359: 91–7.

93.

Bender MJ,McPherson AC,Phelps CM,Pandey SP,Laughlin CR,Shapira JH, et al.Dietary tryptophan metabolite released by intratumoral Lactobacillus reuteri facilitates immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment.Cell.2023; 186: 1846–62.e26.

94.

Huang X,Hu M,Sun T,Li J,Zhou Y,Yan Y, et al.Multi-kingdom gut microbiota analyses define bacterial-fungal interplay and microbial markers of pan-cancer immunotherapy across cohorts.Cell Host Microbe.2023; 31: 1930–43.e4.

95.

Zhu C,Zhang C,Wang S,Xun Z,Zhang D,Lan Z, et al.Characterizations of multi-kingdom gut microbiota in immune checkpoint inhibitor-treated hepatocellular carcinoma.J Immunother Cancer.2024; 12: e008686.

96.

Martini G,Ciardiello D,Dallio M,Famiglietti V,Esposito L,Corte CMD, et al.Gut microbiota correlates with antitumor activity in patients with mCRC and NSCLC treated with cetuximab plus avelumab.Int J Cancer.2022; 151: 473–80.

97.

Hu M,Lin X,Sun T,Shao X,Huang X,Du W, et al.Gut microbiome for predicting immune checkpoint blockade-associated adverse events.Genome Med.2024; 16: 16.

98.

Dubin K,Callahan MK,Ren B,Khanin R,Viale A,Ling L, et al.Intestinal microbiome analyses identify melanoma patients at risk for checkpoint-blockade-induced colitis.Nat Commun.2016; 7: 10391.

99.

Chaput N,Lepage P,Coutzac C,Soularue E,Le Roux K,Monot C, et al.Baseline gut microbiota predicts clinical response and colitis in metastatic melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab.Ann Oncol.2017; 28: 1368–79.

100.

Qureshi Z,Jamil A,Altaf F,Siddique R.Efficacy and safety of probiotics as adjunctive therapy in cancer treatment: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.Am J Clin Oncol.2025; 48: 148–61.

101.

Zhang SL,Han B,Mao YQ,Zhang ZY,Li ZM,Kong CY, et al.Lacticaseibacillus paracasei sh2020 induced antitumor immunity and synergized with anti-programmed cell death 1 to reduce tumor burden in mice.Gut Microbes.2022; 14: 2046246.

102.

Jia D,Wang Q,Qi Y,Jiang Y,He J,Lin Y, et al.Microbial metabolite enhances immunotherapy efficacy by modulating T cell stemness in pan-cancer.Cell.2024; 187: 1651–65.e21.

103.

Renga G,Nunzi E,Pariano M,Puccetti M,Bellet MM,Pieraccini G, et al.Optimizing therapeutic outcomes of immune checkpoint blockade by a microbial tryptophan metabolite.J Immunother Cancer.2022; 10: e003725.

104.

Wu ZY,Wu QW,Han Y,Xiang SJ,Wang YN,Wu WW, et al.Alistipes finegoldii augments the efficacy of immunotherapy against solid tumors.Cancer Cell.2025; 43: 1714–30.e12.

105.

Wang X,Lin S,Wang L,Cao Z,Zhang M,Zhang Y, et al.Versatility of bacterial outer membrane vesicles in regulating intestinal homeostasis.Sci Adv.2023; 9: eade5079.

106.

Hua D,Yang Q,Li X,Zhou X,Kang Y,Zhao Y, et al.The combination of Clostridium butyricum and Akkermansia muciniphila mitigates DSS-induced colitis and attenuates colitis-associated tumorigenesis by modulating gut microbiota and reducing CD8⁺ T cells in mice.mSystems.2025; 10: e0156724.

107.

Zhu X,Li K,Liu G,Wu R,Zhang Y,Wang S, et al.Microbial metabolite butyrate promotes anti-PD-1 antitumor efficacy by modulating T cell receptor signaling of cytotoxic CD8 T cell.Gut Microbes.2023; 15: 2249143.

108.

Nan K,Zhong Z,Yue Y,Shen Y,Zhang H,Wang Z, et al.Fasting-mimicking diet-enriched Bifidobacterium pseudolongum suppresses colorectal cancer by inducing memory CD8⁺ T cells.Gut.2025; 74: 775–86.

109.

Luu M,Riester Z,Baldrich A,Reichardt N,Yuille S,Busetti A, et al.Microbial short-chain fatty acids modulate CD8⁺ T cell responses and improve adoptive immunotherapy for cancer.Nat Commun.2021; 12: 4077.

110.

Genaro SC,Lima de Souza Reis LS,Reis SK,Rabelo Socca EA,Fávaro WJ.Probiotic supplementation attenuates the aggressiveness of chemically induced colorectal tumor in rats.Life Sci.2019; 237: 116895.

111.

Osterlund P,Ruotsalainen T,Korpela R,Saxelin M,Ollus A,Valta P, et al.Lactobacillus supplementation for diarrhoea related to chemotherapy of colorectal cancer: a randomised study.Br J Cancer.2007; 97: 1028–34.

112.

Chang CW,Liu CY,Lee HC,Huang YH,Li LH,Chiau JC, et al.Lactobacillus casei variety rhamnosus probiotic preventively attenuates 5-fluorouracil/oxaliplatin-induced intestinal injury in a syngeneic colorectal cancer model.Front Microbiol.2018; 9: 983.

113.

Mego M,Chovanec J,Vochyanova-Andrezalova I,Konkolovsky P,Mikulova M,Reckova M, et al.Prevention of irinotecan induced diarrhea by probiotics: a randomized double blind, placebo controlled pilot study.Complement Ther Med.2015; 23: 356–62.

114.

García-González AP,Ritter AD,Shrestha S,Andersen EC,Yilmaz LS,Walhout AJM.Bacterial metabolism affects the C. elegans response to cancer chemotherapeutics.Cell.2017; 169: 431–41.e8.

115.

Iida N,Dzutsev A,Stewart CA,Smith L,Bouladoux N,Weingarten RA, et al.Commensal bacteria control cancer response to therapy by modulating the tumor microenvironment.Science.2013; 342: 967–70.

116.

Feng J,Gao M,Zhao C,Yang J,Gao H,Lu X, et al.Oral administration of probiotics reduces chemotherapy-induced diarrhea and oral mucositis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Front Nutr.2022; 9: 823288.

117.

Yang R,Liu W,Cai S,Feng X,Chen Y,Cheng X, et al.Evaluation of the efficacy of probiotics in the chemoradiotherapy of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.BMC Gastroenterol.2025; 25: 312.

118.

Imataki O,Uemura M.Bifidobacterium bloodstream infection in a lymphoma patient undergoing chemotherapy: a case study and implications for probiotic use.Am J Case Rep.2024; 25: e944687.

119.

Yang J,Wei H,Zhou Y,Szeto CH,Li C,Lin Y, et al.High-fat diet promotes colorectal tumorigenesis through modulating gut microbiota and metabolites.Gastroenterology.2022; 162: 135–49.e2.

120.

Bai X,Wei H,Liu W,Coker OO,Gou H,Liu C, et al.Cigarette smoke promotes colorectal cancer through modulation of gut microbiota and related metabolites.Gut.2022; 71: 2439–50.

121.

Liu JL,Xu X,Rixiati Y,Wang CY,Ni HL,Chen WS, et al.Dysfunctional circadian clock accelerates cancer metastasis by intestinal microbiota triggering accumulation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells.Cell Metab.2024; 36: 1320–34.e9.

122.

Hawley JA,Forster SC,Giles EM.Exercise, the gut microbiome and gastrointestinal diseases: therapeutic impact and molecular mechanisms.Gastroenterology.2025; 169: 48–62.

123.

Clarke SF,Murphy EF,O’Sullivan O,Lucey AJ,Humphreys M,Hogan A, et al.Exercise and associated dietary extremes impact on gut microbial diversity.Gut.2014; 63: 1913–20.

124.

Ungvari Z,Fekete M,Fekete JT,Grosso G,Ungvari A,Gyorffy B.Adherence to the Mediterranean diet and its protective effects against colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of 26 studies with 2,217,404 participants.Geroscience.2025; 47: 1105–21.

125.

Chan OYA,Tao L,Chen GD,Kong LY.The association of dietary fiber intake with colorectal cancer and related risks: a literature review of recent research.J Agr Food Res.2025; 21: 101999.

126.

Vernia F,Longo S,Stefanelli G,Viscido A,Latella G.Dietary factors modulating colorectal carcinogenesis.Nutrients.2021; 13: 143.

127.

Tsenkova M,Brauer M,Pozdeev VI,Kasakin M,Busi SB,Schmoetten M, et al.Ketogenic diet suppresses colorectal cancer through the gut microbiome long chain fatty acid stearate.Nat Commun.2025; 16: 1792.

128.

Dmitrieva-Posocco O,Wong AC,Lundgren P,Golos AM,Descamps HC,Dohnalova L, et al.β-hydroxybutyrate suppresses colorectal cancer.Nature.2022; 605: 160–5.

129.

Luo M,Wang Q,Sun Y,Jiang Y,Wang Q,Gu Y, et al.Fasting-mimicking diet remodels gut microbiota and suppresses colorectal cancer progression.NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes.2024; 10: 53.

130.

Clinton SK,Giovannucci EL,Hursting SD.The world cancer research fund/american institute for cancer research third expert report on diet, nutrition, physical activity, and cancer: impact and future directions.J Nutr.2020; 150: 663–71.

131.

Lili Z,Junyan W,Hongfei Z,Baoqing Z,Bolin Z.Detoxification of cancerogenic compounds by lactic acid bacteria strains.Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr.2018; 58: 2727–42.

132.

Shoukat S.Potential anti-carcinogenic effect of probiotic and lactic acid bacteria in detoxification of benzo[a]pyrene: a review.Trends Food Sci Tech.2020; 99: 450–9.

133.

Roje B,Zhang B,Mastrorilli E,Kovačić A,Sušak L,Ljubenkov I, et al.Gut microbiota carcinogen metabolism causes distal tissue tumours.Nature.2024; 632: 1137–44.

134.

Zhernakova DV,Wang D,Liu L,Andreu-Sánchez S,Zhang Y,Ruiz-Moreno AJ, et al.Host genetic regulation of human gut microbial structural variation.Nature.2024; 625: 813–21.

135.

Lopera-Maya EA,Kurilshikov A,van der Graaf A,Hu S,Andreu-Sánchez S,Chen L, et al.Effect of host genetics on the gut microbiome in 7,738 participants of the Dutch Microbiome Project.Nat Genet.2022; 54: 143–51.

136.

Zhu H,Li M,Bi D,Yang H,Gao Y,Song F, et al.Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes tumor progression in KRAS p.G12D-mutant colorectal cancer by binding to DHX15.Nat Commun.2024; 15: 1688.

137.

Chen Y,Liu S,Tan S,Zheng Y,Chen Y,Yang C, et al.KRAS mutations promote the intratumoral colonization of enterotoxigenic bacteroides fragilis in colorectal cancer through the regulation of the miRNA3655/SURF6/IRF7/IFNβ axis.Gut Microbes.2024; 16: 2423043.

138.

Yu J,Liang Y,Zhang Q,Ding H,Xie M,Zhang J, et al.An interplay between human genetics and intratumoral microbiota in the progression of colorectal cancer.Cell Host Microbe.2025; 33: 657–70.e6.

139.

Bao H,Yang C,Zhang P,Zhang J,Fang S,Yang A, et al.A gut-secreted histidine methyltransferase enforces cross-kingdom catalytic antifungal defense.Cell Host Microbe.2026; 34: 131–48.e9.

140.

Faghfuri E,Gholizadeh P.The role of Akkermansia muciniphila in colorectal cancer: a double-edged sword of treatment or disease progression?Biomed Pharmacother.2024; 173: 116416.

141.

Liu Y,Liu Q,Zhang C,Zhao J,Zhang H,Chen W, et al.Strain-specific effects of Akkermansia muciniphila on the regulation of intestinal barrier.Food Sci Hum Wellness.2023; 12: 1526–37.

142.

Wang W,Li N,Xu H,Wei S,Li Y,Ou J, et al.ILC3s regulate the gut microbiota via host intestinal galactosylation to limit pathogen infection in mice.Nat Microbiol.2025; 10: 654–66.

143.

Lei C,Luo C,Xu Z,Ding S,Sriwastva MK,Dryden G, et al.Bacterial and host fucosylation maintain IgA homeostasis to limit intestinal inflammation in mice.Nat Microbiol.2025; 10: 126–43.

144.

Cui C,Tang J,Chen J,Zhang B,Li R,Zhang Q, et al.Lactobacillus acidophilus extracellular vesicles-coated UiO-66-NH₂@siRNA nanoparticles for ulcerative colitis targeted gene therapy and gut microbiota modulation.J Nanobiotechnology.2025; 23: 301.

145.

An BC,Ryu Y,Yoon YS,Choi O,Park HJ,Kim TY, et al.Colorectal cancer therapy using a Pediococcus pentosaceus SL4 drug delivery system secreting lactic acid bacteria-derived protein p8.Mol Cells.2019; 42: 755–62.

146.

Chung Y,Ryu Y,An BC,Yoon YS,Choi O,Kim TY, et al.A synthetic probiotic engineered for colorectal cancer therapy modulates gut microbiota.Microbiome.2021; 9: 122.

147.

Niu L,Liu Y,Li N,Wang Y,Kang L,Su X, et al.Oral probiotics microgel plus Galunisertib reduced TGF-β blockade resistance and enhanced anti-tumor immune responses in colorectal cancer.Int J Pharm.2024; 652: 123810.

148.

Tan L,Guo Z,Shao Y,Ye L,Wang M,Deng X, et al.Analysis of bacterial transcriptome and epitranscriptome using nanopore direct RNA sequencing.Nucleic Acids Res.2024; 52: 8746–62.

149.

Curry KD,Wang Q,Nute MG,Tyshaieva A,Reeves E,Soriano S, et al.Emu: species-level microbial community profiling of full-length 16S rRNA Oxford nanopore sequencing data.Nat Methods.2022; 19: 845–53.

150.

Pountain AW,Yanai I.Dissecting microbial communities with single-cell transcriptome analysis.Science.2025; 389: eadp6252.

151.

Kuchina A,Brettner LM,Paleologu L,Roco CM,Rosenberg AB,Carignano A, et al.Microbial single-cell RNA sequencing by split-pool barcoding.Science.2021; 371: eaba5257.

152.

Si J,Vázquez-Castellanos JF,Gregory AC,Decommer L,Rymenans L,Proost S, et al.Long-term life history predicts current gut microbiome in a population-based cohort study.Nat Aging.2022; 2: 885–95.

153.

Macandog ADG,Catozzi C,Capone M,Nabinejad A,Nanaware PP,Liu S, et al.Longitudinal analysis of the gut microbiota during anti-PD-1 therapy reveals stable microbial features of response in melanoma patients.Cell Host Microbe.2024; 32: 2004–18.e9.

154.

Hillege LE,Trepka KR,Guthrie BGH,Fu X,Aarnoutse R,Paymar MR, et al.Microbial vitamin biosynthesis links gut microbiota dynamics to chemotherapy toxicity.mBio.2025; 16: e0093025.

155.

Zhang Y,Liu R,Chen Y,Cao Z,Liu C,Bao R, et al.Akkermansia muciniphila supplementation in patients with overweight/obese type 2 diabetes: efficacy depends on its baseline levels in the gut.Cell Metab.2025; 37: 592–605.e6.

156.

Lötstedt B,Stražar M,Xavier R,Regev A,Vickovic S.Spatial host-microbiome sequencing reveals niches in the mouse gut.Nat Biotechnol.2024; 42: 1394–403.

Appendix

Less

Year 2026 volume 23 Issue 5

PDF

Cite this Article

BibTeX

Article Info

doi: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2026.0133

Receive Date：2026-02-09
Online Date：2026-11-07
Published：2026-05-15

Article Data

Affiliations

History

Received：2026-02-09
Accepted：2026-04-07

Funding

This project was supported by the RGC-GRF Hong Kong (Grant Nos. 24103225 and 14104924), the RGC-CRF Hong Kong (Grant Nos. C4008-23W and C4042-24GF), the National Natural Science Foundation of China [NSFC] (Grant Nos. 82573882 and 82272989), the Health and Medical Research Fund [HMRF] (Grant No. 22210032), and the CUHK Direct Grant for Research (Grant No. 2025.090).

Affiliations

¹Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care and Peter Hung Pain Research Institute, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

²Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

³CUHK Shenzhen Research Institute, Shenzhen 518000, China

⁴State Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

⁵University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK

Corresponding:

Correspondence to: William Ka Kei Wu and Huarong Chen, E-mail: wukakei@cuhk.edu.hk and hchen2@cuhk.edu.hk

References

Share

https://castjournals.cast.org.cn/joweb/cbm/EN/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2026.0133

Share to

Scan QR to access full text

Cite this article

BibTeX

Citations

表12种不同金属材料的力学参数

科 Family	属数 Number of genus	种数 Number of species	占总种数比例 Percentage of total species (%)	属 Genus	种数 Number of species	占总种数比例 Percentage of total species (%)
鹅膏菌科Amanitaceae	2	11	5.26	鹅膏菌属 Amanita	10	4.78
小菇科 Mycenaceae	2	12	5.74	丝盖伞属 Inocybe	5	2.39
多孔菌科 Polyporaceae	8	14	6.70	蜡蘑属 Laccaria	5	2.39
红菇科 Russulaceae	3	23	11.00	小皮伞属 Marasmius	6	2.87
				小菇属 Mycena	11	5.26
				光柄菇属 Pluteus	5	2.39
				红菇属 Russula	17	8.13
				栓菌属 Trametes	5	2.39

关闭全屏

BibTeX
EndNote
RefWorks
TxT

Table 1 List of tight junction proteins regulated by probiotics

Probiotics	ZO-1	ZO-2	Occludin	Claudin-3	Claudin-4
L. plantarum	Upregulation¹⁴ Prevent degradation¹⁹	Upregulation¹⁴	-	-	-
L. acidophilus	-	-	Upregulation²⁰	-	-
L. rhamnosus	-	-	-	Upregulation²¹	-
L. reuteri	Upregulation²²	-	-	-	-
B. infantis	-	-	Upregulation²³	-	Upregulation²⁴
B. bifidum	-	-	Upregulation²⁵	-	-
B. breve	Upregulation¹²	-	-	-	-
E. coli Nissle 1917	-	Upregulation²⁶	-	-	-
B. subtilis	Prevent degradation²⁷	-	-	-	-
A. muciniphila	Upregulation²⁸	-	Upregulation²⁸	-	-
R. intestinalis	Upregulation²⁹			Upregulation²⁹

A. muciniphila, Akkermansia muciniphila; B. subtilis, Bacillus subtilis; B. bifidum, Bifidobacterium bifidum; B. breve, Bifidobacterium breve; B. infantis, Bifidobacterium infantis; E. coli Nissle 1917, Escherichia coli Nissle 1917; L. acidophilus, Lactobacillus acidophilus; L. plantarum, Lactobacillus plantarum; L. reuteri, Lactobacillus reuteri; L. rhamnosus, Lactobacillus rhamnosus; R. intestinalis, Roseburia intestinalis.

Table 2 Effects of probiotics on gut microbial communities in CRC

Functional features	Probiotics	Enriched probiotics	Inhibited CRC-associated pathogens	Model
Lactobacillus enrichment	Lactococcus lactis HKyuLL10¹⁵	L. intestinalis L. johnsonii	Aeromonas hydrophila Streptococcus_sp_LYSM12	AOM/DSS Apc^min/+
	Streptococcus thermophilus⁴⁴	L. reuteri L. animalis L. acidophilus L. gallinarum	-	Apc^min/+
	L. gallinarum⁴⁵	L. reuteri L. harmsterl	Alistipes Allobacullum	Apc^min/+
Butyrate-producing bacteria enrichment	Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG^46–48	Blautia Roseburia Coprococcus	Clostridium perfringens	Apc^min/+
	Lactobacillus rhamnosus LS8⁴⁹	Faecalibaculum Akkermansia	-	AOM/DSS
	Bifidobacterium breve CCFM683¹²	Odoribacter splanchnicus	-	Apc^min/+
	Lactobacillus plantarum L168⁵⁰	Faecalibaculum	Oscillibacter Alistipes	AOM/DSS

CRC, colorectal cancer; L. acidophilus, Lactobacillus acidophilus; L. animalis, Lactobacillus animalis; L. gallinarum, Lactobacillus gallinarum; L. reuteri, Lactobacillus reuteri.

Table 3 Microbiome strategies to improve immunotherapy

Approach	Targets	Key enriched probiotic/metabolite	Primary function	Outcomes
Lactobacillus paracasei sh2020 oral administration¹⁰¹	Tumor cells (CXCL10)	Lactobacillus paracasei	Directly recruits CD8⁺ T cells	Enhances anti-PD-1 efficacy
Oral administration of C. butyricum (via SecD protein)¹³	Tumor cells (PI3K-AKT-NF-κB pathway)	C. butyricum/butyrate	Blocks oncogenic signaling and reduces IL-6	Enhances anti-PD-1 efficacy
Roseburia intestinalis²⁹	CD8⁺ T cells	Butyrate	Directly enhances cytotoxic function of CD8⁺ T cells	Enhances anti-PD-1 efficacy
Enrichment of bacteria producing indole derivatives	T cells	Indole-3-propionic acid¹⁰², indole-3-carboxylic acid⁴⁵, and indole-3-aldehyde¹⁰³	Modulates T-cell differentiation and stemness	Enhances anti-PD-1 efficacy
Utilization of LIPOAF protein from Alistipes fingoldii¹⁰⁴	Dendritic cells (TLR-2-NF-κB pathway)	LIPOAF protein	Activates dendritic cells	Drives tumor infiltration of CD8⁺ T cells
Utilization of outer membrane vesicles from A. muciniphila¹⁰⁵	Dendritic cells	A. muciniphila	Induces dendritic cell maturation	Activates cytotoxic T-cell responses
Co-administration of C. butyricum and A. muciniphila¹⁰⁶	Gut microbiota ecosystem/Systemic inflammation	C. butyricum, A. muciniphila	Synergistically reshapes microbiota and reduces inflammation	Enhances anti-PD-L1 efficacy

A. muciniphila, Akkermansia muciniphila; C. butyricum, Clostridium butyricum.

Table 4 Microbiome strategies to improve chemotherapy

Approach	Targets	Key enriched probiotic/metabolite	Primary function	Outcomes
Administration of B. bifidum¹¹⁰	Tumor cells	B. bifidum	Acts synergistically with the chemotherapeutic agent	Potentiates 5-fluorouracil efficacy
Supplementation with L. rhamnosus GG/L. casei^111,112 and Bifidobacterium¹¹³	Intestinal barrier/microbial homeostasis	Lactobacillus spp.	Fortifies the intestinal barrier and restores homeostasis	Alleviates chemotherapy-induced mucositis and diarrhea

B. bifidum, Bifidobacterium bifidum; L. casei, Lactobacillus casei; L. rhamnosus, Lactobacillus rhamnosus.

Table 5 Leveraging diet and lifestyle to modulate the CRC microbiome

Approach	Targets	Key enriched probiotic/metabolite	Primary function	Outcomes
Fasting-mimicking diet combined with immunotherapy¹⁰⁸	Tissue-resident memory T cells	Enrichment of B. pseudolongum, L-arginine	Promotes the generation and activation of tissue-resident memory CD8⁺ T cells	Enhances anti-CTLA-4 therapy
Ketogenic diet¹²⁷	Colonic crypt cell proliferation (via Hcar2)	Stearic acid, β-ydroxybutyrate	Generates metabolites that inhibit cell proliferation	Suppresses CRC growth
Regular exercise^123,130	Gut microbiota diversity/SCFA production	SCFA-producing bacteria	Increases microbial diversity and beneficial metabolites	Lowers CRC risk

B. pseudolongum, Bifidobacterium pseudolongum; CRC, colorectal cancer; SCFA, short-chain fatty acid.

Table 6 Microbiota remodeling based on host genetics

Approach	Targets	Key enriched probiotic/metabolite	Primary function	Outcomes
P. distasonis oral administration¹³⁸	F. nucleatum	P. distasonis	Inhibition of F. nucleatum	Suppress KARS-mutant CRC progression
Extracellular vesicles from L. acidophilus delivering TNF-α siRNA¹⁴⁴	TNF-α	L. acidophilus	Colon-specific gene silencing and microbial remodeling	Suppress IBD
Co-delivery of the probiotic, EcN, and the TGF-β inhibitor, galunisertib, via microgels¹⁴⁷	TGF-β pathway inhibition	Escherichia coli Nissle 1917	Synergistic modulation of the tumor microenvironment	Enhanced antitumor efficacy

CRC, colorectal cancer; F. nucleatum, Fusobacterium nucleatum; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; L. acidophilus, Lactobacillus acidophilus; P. distasonis, Parabacteroides distasonis.

Figure 1 Proposed mechanisms for the beneficial effects of probiotics on gut homeostasis. (A) Enhancement of intestinal barrier function. Probiotics and their metabolites (e.g., short-chain fatty acids) strengthen the gut barrier through multiple pathways: (i) upregulating the expression of tight junction proteins (ZO-1, occludin, and claudin) and the adherens junction protein, E-cadherin; (ii) increasing the number of goblet cells and stimulating the production of the mucin protein, MUC2; and (iii) modulating mucosal immunity. Collectively, these actions improve barrier integrity and restore mucosal homeostasis. (B) Inhibition of pathogenic bacteria. Probiotics counteract pathogens via several mechanisms: (i) direct antagonism and competition for adhesion sites and nutrients; (ii) production of antimicrobial metabolites (e.g., bacteriocins and organic acids) that kill or inhibit pathogens; (iii) disruption of pathogenic biofilm formation and restoration of a balanced gut microbiota; and (iv) occupying colonization sites to prevent pathogen colonization. A. hydrophila, Aeromonas hydrophila; A. muciniphila, Akkermansia muciniphila; B. infantis, Bifidobacterium infantis; B. pseudolongum, Bifidobacterium pseudolongum; C. butyricum, Clostridium butyricum; E. coli, Escherichia coli; F. prausnitzii, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii; L. lactis, Lactobacillus lactis; O. splanchnicus, Odoribacter splanchnicus; R. intestinalis, Roseburia intestinalis; S. aureus, Staphylococcus aureus; S. cerevisiae, Saccharomyces cerevisiae; S. thermophilus, Streptococcus thermophilus; S. typhimurium, Salmonella typhimurium; TLR, Toll-like receptor. Figure created using BioRender (www.biorender.com).

Figure 2 Regulation of the tumor microenvironment by probiotics and metabolites. Probiotics and derived metabolites suppress CRC through direct effects on tumor cells and indirect remodeling of the immune microenvironment. Direct mechanisms involve strain-specific signaling regulation. S. thermophilus produces β-galactosidase to modulate the Hippo pathway, whereas B. breve (via conjugated linoleic acid) and L. Y-11 (via YL-11 EPS) inhibit NF-κB activity, thereby reducing tumor cell survival and proliferation. Indirectly, these metabolites promote antitumor immunity by enhancing NK cell recruitment (e.g., B. uniformis secretes ZPS capsule), CD8⁺ T cell cytotoxicity (e.g., C. butyricum produces butyrate), and dendritic cell antigen presentation (e.g., L. plantarum secretes indole-3-lactic acid). B. breve, Bifidobacterium breve; B. cellulosilyticus, Bacteroides cellulosilyticus; B. uniformis, Bacteroides uniformis; C. butyricum, Clostridium butyricum; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; GRP78, glucose-regulated protein 78; L. plantarum, Lactobacillus plantarum; L. Y-11, Lactobacillus. YL-11; MDSC, myeloid-derived suppressor cell; NK, natural killer; S. thermophilus, Streptococcus thermophilus. Figure created using BioRender (www.biorender.com).

Articles: Latest Articles; Most Read; Collections

Updates: Events; News; Multimedia

About: About Us

Contact

No. 86 Xueyuan South Road, Haidian District, Beijing

100081

010-62662699(Operation and Technical Support)

qkjq@cast.org.cn

Copyright © 2025 China Association for Science and Technology. All rights reserved. For all open access content, the relevant licensing terms apply.
Sponsored by the Office of the Leading Group for Cybersecurity and Informatization of CAST, and supported by Science and Technology Review Publishing House