Tuberculosis (TB) is a chronic infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb), with approximately 10 million people being infected each year and 1.6 million deaths in 2021 (Furin et al., 2019; Bagcchi, 2023). The epidemic of TB has brought heavy economic and social burdens to countries around the world. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) Global TB Report 2022, the global spending on essential TB services for TB diagnosis, treatment, and prevention has exceeded $6.4 billion (Global tuberculosis report 2023, 2023). Besides, drug-resistant forms of Mtb are currently on course to be the world’s deadliest pathogens, responsible for a quarter of deaths due to antimicrobial resistance (Furin et al., 2019). The prevalence of drug-resistant Mtb is also a major threat to the control of TB. Hence, it has been an urgent task for researchers to develop more effective measures for the prevention and treatment of TB.

Recent advances in gut microbiota explorations have led to improved knowledge of the ‘gut–lung axis’. Some studies have shown that intestinal microbiota dysbiosis may affect the occurrence and development of respiratory diseases including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory pathogens infection, etc. by the ‘gut–lung axis’ (Keely et al., 2012; Barcik et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2023). The documents about the relationship between gut microbiota and TB have increased in recent years, and increasing evidence supports the presence of intestinal microbiota dysbiosis in TB patients. A case–control study of pulmonary TB in pediatric patients showed that the abundance of Prevotellaceae and Enterococcaceae was increased, and the abundance of Oscillospiraceae and Bifidobacteriaceae was decreased in TB patients compared with healthy control subjects (Li et al., 2019). Maji et al. have found that the levels of Provetalla decreased and Bacteroides increased in TB patients (Maji et al., 2018). Recently, our teams’ study in active TB patients showed the abundance of Bacteroidetes significantly altered compared with health subjects (Han et al., 2024). Another study also showed the phylum of Bacteroidetes altered in the feces samples of patients with recurrent TB (Luo et al., 2017). All these researches indicated that Mtb infection can lead to the alteration of intestinal microbiota composition.

However, the causal relations between Mtb infection and intestinal microbiota dysbiosis have not been fully elucidated. Some factors including alcohol, smoking, HIV infection, and diabetes have been proven to cause gut microbiota dysbiosis, and these also are important risk factors for TB (Naidoo et al., 2019). A recent study has shown that the mice fed with a high-fat diet-induced gut microbiota dysbiosis increased the risk of developing active TB in mice (Arias et al., 2019). Another study found Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio increased in a murine model of type 2 diabetes induced by an energy-dense diet, and increased the susceptibility to Mtb infection (Sathkumara et al., 2021). These findings support a viewpoint that the changes in the gut microbiome are a contributing factor in Mtb infection pathogenesis and its clinical presentation. Many documents supposed that gut microbiota dysbiosis could modulate immunity and inflammation reaction at distal sites such as the lungs, reduce colonization resistance by external pathogens, and promote TB susceptibility (Naidoo et al., 2019; Osei Sekyere et al., 2020). Hence, modulation of the gut microbiota and balance of the gut–lung axis was a potential avenue for TB prevention and management.

Based on our previous studies and other reports, we found the effect of Mtb infection on the gut Bacteroidetes was most significant. Hence, in the present study, clindamycin (CL), an antibiotic that selectively disorders anaerobic Bacteroidetes (You et al., 2019), was used to establish a mouse model of intestinal microbiota dysbiosis. We uncovered the important role of gut microbiome dysbiosis affecting Mycobacteria colonization in the mouse lungs using the technology of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). Furthermore, based on the ‘gut–lung axis’ theory, we performed a transcriptomic analysis of the mice lungs after Mycobacteria infection. We aim to explore the potential role and mechanism of gut microbiome dysbiosis enhancing Mycobacteria colonization in the lungs of mice.

TB remains a major health challenge globally. How to effectively limit or reduce Mtb colonization in the host is a potential strategy to prevent this disease transmission and development. Recent studies have shown that the gut microbiome can affect distant organs via the ‘gut–lung axis’, and gut microbiota dysbiosis is a potential factor inducing respiratory diseases including TB (Waldman and Balskus, 2018; Ma et al., 2022). Previous studies have shown that the gut microbiota was significantly different in TB patients compared with healthy humans and revealed gut microbiota dysbiosis, especially Bacteroidota, and Firmicutes, is strongly associated with the development of TB (Maji et al., 2018; Luo et al., 2017). However, how the gut microbiota affects TB development by the ‘gut–lung axis’ remains unclear. In the present study, we established a mouse model of gut microbiota dysbiosis and an FMT model using clindamycin treatment and revealed the potential mechanisms of intestinal microbiota dysbiosis promoting MS pulmonary colonization in the mouse by upregulating Nos2 gene-associated pathways.

Antibiotics can induce intestinal microbiota dysbiosis, which in turn affects host immunity and leads to increased susceptibility and deterioration of a variety of diseases (Fishbein et al., 2023). Previous research has verified that gut Bacteroidota dysbiosis is strongly associated with the development of TB (Du et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2019; Yunusbaeva et al., 2024). Hence, we select clindamycin, an antibiotic that selectively disrupts anaerobic Bacteroidota (You et al., 2019), to treat the mice in this study. Our results show that the abundance of Bacteroidota was significantly reduced and the abundance of Firmicutes was increased in the CL group compared with the CON group. This result is consistent with the previous study which reported that CL is effective in clearing Bacteroidota (You et al., 2019). Bacteroidota is a consortium of many commensal bacterial species responsible for major fermentation processes, glycolipid production, and promoting systemic Th1 immune responses (Mazmanian et al., 2005).

The fungi are also important components of the gut microbiome. The gut fungi mycobiota dysbiosis is related to many diseases (Azzam et al., 2020). In the present study, we found that the gut fungi mycobiota balance of mice was disrupted by CL, especially, Aspergillus and Cladosporium significant increase in the CL vs the CON groups. Aspergillus and Cladosporium are opportunistic pathogens that usually cause lung infections in immunocompromised patients (Wheeler et al., 2017; Sandoval-Denis et al., 2015). Bacteria and fungi harbor together in the gastrointestinal tract and occupy the same ecological niche. They interact with each other and develop complex ecological networks through these interactions. Homeostasis of microbial ecological networks limits pathogen invasion and infection (Lozupone et al., 2012). The ratio of ITS2/16S rRNA can reflect the diversity and composition structural alterations of the fungi–bacterial microbiota (Lemoinne et al., 2020). In general, antibiotics are directed against bacteria and do not affect fungi. However, our data revealed that CL treatment significantly altered the diversity and composition structure of the fungi–bacterial microbiota, and reduced the trans-kingdom network complexity and interaction between bacteria and fungi. These suggested that the alterations of gut bacteria can affect the composition and diversity of fungi. Previous documents had also reported that any changes in gut bacteria would inadvertently cause alterations in the gut fungal community, and targeted fungal interventions would also cause changes in the gut bacterial community (Haak et al., 2021; Sovran et al., 2018; Charlet et al., 2018; van Tilburg Bernardes et al., 2020). Hence, gut microbiota should be taken as a whole rather than a single genus to explain the relationship between gut microbiota and associated diseases.

Since most of the microbes in the gut are non-culturable, the FMT is considered to be an ideal model to study the function of gut microbiota. The success or not of FMT is influenced by many factors, such as host intestinal microbiota, immunity, and genetic factors (Porcari et al., 2023). During the FMT, not all microbiota in the donor feces have the same colonization ability in the receptors. Some research has revealed that the colonization success rate of Bacteroidetes is higher than that of Firmicutes (Hintze et al., 2014). In the present study, we found that the ratio of Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes in the CL treatment group increased compared to the control group (Figure 3b). However, after FMT, the ratio of Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes decreased in the CL-FMT group vs the CON-FMT group (Figure 4d). We speculated that the possible reason for this difference was that the colonization of Firmicutes decreased in the CL-FMT receptor group after transplantation. In contrast, the colonization of Bacteroides increased, resulting in a decrease in the proportion of Firmicutes/Bacteroides in the CL-FMT group. However, we considered the gut microbiota as a whole in the analysis of the experimental results. After FMT, we found that 85.11% of bacterial genera and 52.38% of fungi genera present in the CL inocula were successfully transferred to the CL-recipient mice, and 91.45% of bacteria genera and 56.36% of fungi genera in the CON inocula were also successfully transferred to the CON-recipient mice, respectively (Figure 4g). The trans-kingdom network analyses between bacteria and fungi showed that the trends of the gut microbiome in recipient mice were consistent with those in the donor mice. Therefore, the inconsistent results between Figures 3b and 4d will not affect this study’s findings, and the FMT model established in this study is successful.

The FMT results revealed that gut commensal bacteria dysbiosis can promote MS colonization in the lungs of mice, but the underlying mechanisms remain not fully understood. Recent studies have suggested that changes in the ‘gut–lung axis’ are a contributing factor in the pathogenesis and clinical manifestations of Mtb infection (Yang et al., 2022; Alvarado-Peña et al., 2023.) What is the substance mediating the interaction between the lung and the gut? There have been a variety of results in the different studies. Yang et al. have found that the gut microbiota via modulation of lncRNA-mediated protective immunity against Mtb, and they found Bacteroides fragilis directly upregulated expression of lncRNA and promoted anti-TB immunity (Yang et al., 2022). However, another clinical study on TB found that the expression level of iNOS in the plasma of new-onset pulmonary TB patients was significantly higher than that of healthy humans (Chinta et al., 2016). In the present study, we found that Nos2 expression significantly rises in the CL and CL-FMT groups. Hence, we speculated that the gut microbiota may increase MS colonization in mouse lungs by upregulation of Nos2 gene expression and associated pathways. Lung epithelial cells, as first responders during Mtb infection, have been shown to play an important role in TB pathogenesis (Scordo et al., 2016; Ryndak and Laal, 2019). Our results also confirmed that overexpression of Nos2 in A549 cells (a human alveolar epithelial cell) can enhance MS colonization in these cells.

Nos2, also termed iNOS, is a homodimeric enzyme that is induced by immune stimulation in an independent of intracellular Ca²⁺ manner and plays an important role in infection, inflammation, immune regulation, and the control of intracellular bacterial pathogen infection (Chakravortty and Hensel, 2003). Compared with Nos1 and Nos3, Nos2 has the highest efficiency for production NO (Fischer et al., 2002). NO has direct antibacterial effects and immune-modulating function to intracellular pathogens and was considered a key molecule in controlling pathogens infections (Chakravortty and Hensel, 2003). It has been verified that reactive nitrogen intermediates produced by murine cells could inhibit Mtb infection (Scanga et al., 2001). The use of Nos2 knock-out mice and NO synthase inhibitors is impaired in the control of Mtb growth (MacMicking et al., 1997; Chan et al., 1995). However, our data found that the high concentration of NO increased the colonization of MS in A549 cells. This result seems to contradict that NO has antibacterial activity. Some studies have also shown that NO can promote bacterial growth. Gusarov et al. reported that NO increases the resistance of bacteria to a broad spectrum of antibiotics, enabling the bacteria to survive and share habitats with antibiotic-producing microorganisms (Gusarov et al., 2009). Cole et al. showed that host cell-derived NO promoted the escape of listerolysin-dependent bacteria from phagocytic vacuoles into the cytoplasm by inhibiting the proton-pumping activity of V-ATPase and delaying phagolysosome fusion (Cole et al., 2012; Bogdan, 2012). Another study has shown that the maximal level of NO produced by human macrophages was not bactericidal or bacteriostatic to Mtb, and the number of viable mycobacteria was increased in macrophages that produced NO, and this is correlated with the expression of nitrate reductase (Jung et al., 2013). Therefore, we speculate that intracellular NO synthesized by Nos2 has dual roles, including bactericidal at high concentrations and promoting bacterial growth at low concentrations.

ROS are commonly present in various habitats occupied by living organisms and the production of ROS appears as a very ancient host strategy for coping with pathogens (Rhen, 2019; Roy et al., 2017). ROS has shown potent antimicrobial activity against many pathogens including bacteria, fungi, and viruses. The accumulation of ROS is required for killing or inhibiting bacteria (Hong et al., 2019). NO interferes with antimicrobial killing by suppressing ROS accumulation (Gusarov et al., 2009). Hence, we assess the level of ROS in the overexpression of Nos2 plasmids A549 cells. The results show that the ROS concentration in A549 cells transfected with Nos2-pcDNA3.1 was significantly lower than that in the control A549 and A549 cells transfected with pcDNA3.1 empty vector. This suggested that the promotion of bacterial proliferation by Nos2 is dependent on lower ROS levels. The crosstalk between Nos2 and ROS has been investigated in other research. Zheng et al. reported that the lower ROS level induced by Nos2a significantly inhibited E. piscicida proliferation and infection in zebrafish (Zheng et al., 2023). Another study has also shown that Nos2-produced ROS have an important role in maintaining homeostasis of the gut microbiota and defense against bacterial translocation (Matziouridou et al., 2018). Therefore, regulating the Nos2–ROS pathway may enhance the host’s defense ability against pathogens.

β-defensin-1 is an antimicrobial peptide, which is mainly produced by various epithelial cells and is an important part of the innate immune response (Flores Saiffe Farías et al., 2015). Defb1 is also expressed in the respiratory epithelium cells and protects the airways from respiratory pathogens (Diamond et al., 2008). Previous research has found that Defb1 has 98% killing activity against active Mtb H37Rv (Álvarez et al., 2018), and also has an effective antibacterial effect against dormant mycobacteria (Sharma et al., 2017). Consistent with the above results, our data revealed that there was a strong negative correlation between Defb1 gene expression and MS colonization in A549 cells. The present study was mainly performed at the gene level and lacked verification at the protein level. We will verify the role of the Nos2–Defb1 pathway on MS colonization at the protein levels in future studies.

Altogether, the crosstalk between the gut microbiome and the lungs through the ‘gut–lung axis’ is complex and may involve multiple mechanisms, including immune response, metabolic disorders, cytokines, inflammation, etc. However, in the present study, we found that gut microbiome dysbiosis induced by clindamycin disturbs the gut equilibrium between bacteria and fungi, alters the lung transcriptome, and increases Nos2 expression. Then, the microbiota dysbiosis could enhance the pulmonary colonization of MS in mice by regulating the Nos2–NO, Nos2–ROS, and Nos2–Defb1 pathways (Figure 7). In the future, we need more experiments to explore the relationship between the intestinal microbiome and the Nos2-associated pathways in the lung and to further explore new targets for the prevention and treatment of TB.

Figure 7

Download asset Open asset

16s RNA / ITS and transcriptome sequencing data have been deposited in NCBI under the accession codes PRJNA1091926 and PRJNA1099882. All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for the figures and figures supplements.

1. 1. Han M
   2. Wang X
   3. Su L
   4. Yang F

   (2024) NCBI BioProject

   ID PRJNA1091926. SrRNA gene sequencing and ITS gene sequencing of mice.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA1091926
2. 1. Han M
   2. Wang X
   3. Su L
   4. Yang F

   (2024) NCBI BioProject

   ID PRJNA1099882. RNA-Seq of mice.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA1099882

1. 1. Alvarado-Peña N
   2. Galeana-Cadena D
   3. Gómez-García IA
   4. Mainero XS
   5. Silva-Herzog E

   (2023) The microbiome and the gut-lung axis in tuberculosis: interplay in the course of disease and treatment

   Frontiers in Microbiology 14:1237998.

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1237998

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Álvarez ÁH
   2. Martínez Velázquez M
   3. Prado Montes de Oca E

   (2018) Human β-defensin 1 update: potential clinical applications of the restless warrior

   The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology 104:133–137.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocel.2018.09.007

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. André AC
   2. Laborde M
   3. Marteyn BS

   (2022) The battle for oxygen during bacterial and fungal infections

   Trends in Microbiology 30:643–653.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2022.01.002

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Arias L
   2. Goig GA
   3. Cardona P
   4. Torres-Puente M
   5. Díaz J
   6. Rosales Y
   7. Garcia E
   8. Tapia G
   9. Comas I
   10. Vilaplana C
   11. Cardona PJ

   (2019) Influence of gut microbiota on progression to tuberculosis generated by high fat diet-induced obesity in C3HeB/FeJ mice

   Frontiers in Immunology 10:2464.

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.02464

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Azzam SZ
   2. Cayme GJ
   3. Martinez LR

   (2020) Polymicrobial interactions involving fungi and their importance for the environment and in human disease

   Microbial Pathogenesis 140:103942.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2019.103942

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Bagcchi S

   (2023) WHO’s global tuberculosis report 2022

   The Lancet Microbe 4:e20.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-5247(22)00359-7

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Barcik W
   2. Boutin RCT
   3. Sokolowska M
   4. Finlay BB

   (2020) The role of lung and gut microbiota in the pathology of asthma

   Immunity 52:241–255.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2020.01.007

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bogdan C

   (2012) Listeria monocytogenes: no spreading without nO

   Immunity 36:697–699.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2012.05.009

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Chakravortty D
   2. Hensel M

   (2003) Inducible nitric oxide synthase and control of intracellular bacterial pathogens

   Microbes and Infection 5:621–627.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/s1286-4579(03)00096-0

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Chan J
    2. Tanaka K
    3. Carroll D
    4. Flynn J
    5. Bloom BR

    (1995) Effects of nitric oxide synthase inhibitors on murine infection with mycobacterium tuberculosis

    Infection and Immunity 63:736–740.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.63.2.736-740.1995

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Charlet R
    2. Pruvost Y
    3. Tumba G
    4. Istel F
    5. Poulain D
    6. Kuchler K
    7. Sendid B
    8. Jawhara S

    (2018) Remodeling of the candida glabrata cell wall in the gastrointestinal tract affects the gut microbiota and the immune response

    Scientific Reports 8:3316.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21422-w

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Chinta KC
    2. Saini V
    3. Glasgow JN
    4. Mazorodze JH
    5. Rahman MA
    6. Reddy D
    7. Steyn AJC

    (2016) The emerging role of gasotransmitters in the pathogenesis of tuberculosis

    Nitric Oxide 59:28–41.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.niox.2016.06.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Cole C
    2. Thomas S
    3. Filak H
    4. Henson PM
    5. Lenz LL

    (2012) Nitric oxide increases susceptibility of toll-like receptor-activated macrophages to spreading listeria monocytogenes

    Immunity 36:807–820.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2012.03.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Diamond G
    2. Beckloff N
    3. Ryan LK

    (2008) Host defense peptides in the oral cavity and the lung: similarities and differences

    Journal of Dental Research 87:915–927.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910808701011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Du W
    2. Zhao Y
    3. Zhang L

    (2022) Bacteriomes in lesions of pulmonary tuberculosis and its association with status of mycobacterium tuberculosis excretion

    BMC Microbiology 22:280.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-022-02698-5

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Fischer A
    2. Folkerts G
    3. Geppetti P
    4. Groneberg DA

    (2002) Mediators of asthma: nitric oxide

    Pulmonary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 15:73–81.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/pupt.2001.0332

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Fishbein SRS
    2. Mahmud B
    3. Dantas G

    (2023) Antibiotic perturbations to the gut microbiome

    Nature Reviews. Microbiology 21:772–788.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-023-00933-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Flores Saiffe Farías A
    2. Jaime Herrera López E
    3. Moreno Vázquez CJ
    4. Li W
    5. Prado Montes de Oca E

    (2015) Predicting functional regulatory SNPs in the human antimicrobial peptide genes DEFB1 and CAMP in tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS

    Computational Biology and Chemistry 59 Pt A:117–125.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2015.09.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Furin J
    2. Cox H
    3. Pai M

    (2019) Tuberculosis

    Lancet 393:1642–1656.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30308-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. Website

    1. Global tuberculosis report 2023

    (2023) Geneva: World Health Organization

    Accessed November 7, 2023.

    https://www.who.int/teams/global-tuberculosis-programme/tb-reports/global-tuberculosis-report-2023
21. 1. Gusarov I
    2. Shatalin K
    3. Starodubtseva M
    4. Nudler E

    (2009) Endogenous nitric oxide protects bacteria against a wide spectrum of antibiotics

    Science 325:1380–1384.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1175439

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Haak BW
    2. Argelaguet R
    3. Kinsella CM
    4. Kullberg RFJ
    5. Lankelma JM
    6. Deijs M
    7. Klein M
    8. Jebbink MF
    9. Hugenholtz F
    10. Kostidis S
    11. Giera M
    12. Hakvoort TBM
    13. de Jonge WJ
    14. Schultz MJ
    15. van Gool T
    16. van der Poll T
    17. de Vos WM
    18. van der Hoek LM
    19. Wiersinga WJ

    (2021) Integrative transkingdom analysis of the gut microbiome in antibiotic perturbation and critical illness

    mSystems 6:e01148-20.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.01148-20

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Han M
    2. Wang X
    3. Zhang J
    4. Su L
    5. Ishaq HM
    6. Li D
    7. Cui J
    8. Zhao H
    9. Yang F

    (2024) Gut bacterial and fungal dysbiosis in tuberculosis patients

    BMC Microbiology 24:141.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-024-03275-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Hintze KJ
    2. Cox JE
    3. Rompato G
    4. Benninghoff AD
    5. Ward RE
    6. Broadbent J
    7. Lefevre M

    (2014) Broad scope method for creating humanized animal models for animal health and disease research through antibiotic treatment and human fecal transfer

    Gut Microbes 5:183–191.

    https://doi.org/10.4161/gmic.28403

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Hong Y
    2. Zeng J
    3. Wang X
    4. Drlica K
    5. Zhao X

    (2019) Post-stress bacterial cell death mediated by reactive oxygen species

    PNAS 116:10064–10071.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1901730116

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Huang SF
    2. Yang YY
    3. Chou KT
    4. Fung CP
    5. Wang FD
    6. Su WJ

    (2019) Systemic proinflammation after Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection was correlated to the gut microbiome in HIV-uninfected humans

    European Journal of Clinical Investigation 49:e13068.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13068

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Jung JY
    2. Madan-Lala R
    3. Georgieva M
    4. Rengarajan J
    5. Sohaskey CD
    6. Bange FC
    7. Robinson CM

    (2013) The intracellular environment of human macrophages that produce nitric oxide promotes growth of mycobacteria

    Infection and Immunity 81:3198–3209.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.00611-13

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Keely S
    2. Talley NJ
    3. Hansbro PM

    (2012) Pulmonary-intestinal cross-talk in mucosal inflammatory disease

    Mucosal Immunology 5:7–18.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/mi.2011.55

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Lemoinne S
    2. Kemgang A
    3. Ben Belkacem K

    (2020) Fungi participate in the dysbiosis of gut microbiota in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis

    Gut 69:92–102.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317791

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Li W
    2. Zhu Y
    3. Liao Q
    4. Wang Z
    5. Wan C

    (2019) Characterization of gut microbiota in children with pulmonary tuberculosis

    BMC Pediatrics 19:445.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-019-1782-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Lozupone CA
    2. Stombaugh JI
    3. Gordon JI
    4. Jansson JK
    5. Knight R

    (2012) Diversity, stability and resilience of the human gut microbiota

    Nature 489:220–230.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11550

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Luo M
    2. Liu Y
    3. Wu P
    4. Luo DX
    5. Sun Q
    6. Zheng H
    7. Hu R
    8. Pandol SJ
    9. Li QF
    10. Han YP
    11. Zeng Y

    (2017) Alternation of gut microbiota in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis

    Frontiers in Physiology 8:822.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00822

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Ma PJ
    2. Wang MM
    3. Wang Y

    (2022) Gut microbiota: a new insight into lung diseases

    Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & Pharmacotherapie 155:113810.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2022.113810

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. MacMicking JD
    2. North RJ
    3. LaCourse R
    4. Mudgett JS
    5. Shah SK
    6. Nathan CF

    (1997) Identification of nitric oxide synthase as a protective locus against tuberculosis

    PNAS 94:5243–5248.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.10.5243

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Maji A
    2. Misra R
    3. Dhakan DB
    4. Gupta V
    5. Mahato NK
    6. Saxena R
    7. Mittal P
    8. Thukral N
    9. Sharma E
    10. Singh A
    11. Virmani R
    12. Gaur M
    13. Singh H
    14. Hasija Y
    15. Arora G
    16. Agrawal A
    17. Chaudhry A
    18. Khurana JP
    19. Sharma VK
    20. Lal R
    21. Singh Y

    (2018) Gut microbiome contributes to impairment of immunity in pulmonary tuberculosis patients by alteration of butyrate and propionate producers

    Environmental Microbiology 20:402–419.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.14015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Matziouridou C
    2. Rocha SDC
    3. Haabeth OA
    4. Rudi K
    5. Carlsen H
    6. Kielland A

    (2018) iNOS- and NOX1-dependent ROS production maintains bacterial homeostasis in the ileum of mice

    Mucosal Immunology 11:774–784.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/mi.2017.106

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Mazmanian SK
    2. Liu CH
    3. Tzianabos AO
    4. Kasper DL

    (2005) An immunomodulatory molecule of symbiotic bacteria directs maturation of the host immune system

    Cell 122:107–118.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2005.05.007

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Naidoo CC
    2. Nyawo GR
    3. Wu BG
    4. Walzl G
    5. Warren RM
    6. Segal LN
    7. Theron G

    (2019) The microbiome and tuberculosis: state of the art, potential applications, and defining the clinical research agenda

    The Lancet. Respiratory Medicine 7:892–906.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30501-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Osei Sekyere J
    2. Maningi NE
    3. Fourie PB

    (2020) Mycobacterium tuberculosis, antimicrobials, immunity, and lung-gut microbiota crosstalk: current updates and emerging advances

    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1467:21–47.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14300

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Porcari S
    2. Benech N
    3. Valles-Colomer M
    4. Segata N
    5. Gasbarrini A
    6. Cammarota G
    7. Sokol H
    8. Ianiro G

    (2023) Key determinants of success in fecal microbiota transplantation: from microbiome to clinic

    Cell Host & Microbe 31:712–733.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2023.03.020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Rhen M

    (2019) Salmonella and reactive oxygen species: a love-hate relationship

    Journal of Innate Immunity 11:216–226.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000496370

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Roy J
    2. Galano JM
    3. Durand T
    4. Le Guennec JY
    5. Lee JC

    (2017) Physiological role of reactive oxygen species as promoters of natural defenses

    FASEB Journal: Official Publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology 31:3729–3745.

    https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.201700170R

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Ryndak MB
    2. Laal S

    (2019) Mycobacterium tuberculosis primary infection and dissemination: a critical role for alveolar epithelial cells

    Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 9:299.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2019.00299

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Sandoval-Denis M
    2. Sutton DA
    3. Martin-Vicente A
    4. Cano-Lira JF
    5. Wiederhold N
    6. Guarro J
    7. Gené J

    (2015) Cladosporium species recovered from clinical samples in the United States

    Journal of Clinical Microbiology 53:2990–3000.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01482-15

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Sathkumara HD
    2. Eaton JL
    3. Field MA
    4. Govan BL
    5. Ketheesan N
    6. Kupz A

    (2021) A murine model of tuberculosis/type 2 diabetes comorbidity for investigating the microbiome, metabolome and associated immune parameters

    Animal Models and Experimental Medicine 4:181–188.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ame2.12159

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Scanga CA
    2. Mohan VP
    3. Tanaka K
    4. Alland D
    5. Flynn JL
    6. Chan J

    (2001) The inducible nitric oxide synthase locus confers protection against aerogenic challenge of both clinical and laboratory strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in mice

    Infection and Immunity 69:7711–7717.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.69.12.7711-7717.2001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Scordo JM
    2. Knoell DL
    3. Torrelles JB

    (2016) Alveolar epithelial cells in mycobacterium tuberculosis infection: active players or innocent bystanders?

    Journal of Innate Immunity 8:3–14.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000439275

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Sharma R
    2. Saikia UN
    3. Sharma S
    4. Verma I

    (2017) Activity of human beta defensin-1 and its motif against active and dormant Mycobacterium tuberculosis

    Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 101:7239–7248.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-017-8466-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Sovran B
    2. Planchais J
    3. Jegou S
    4. Straube M
    5. Lamas B
    6. Natividad JM
    7. Agus A
    8. Dupraz L
    9. Glodt J
    10. Da Costa G
    11. Michel ML
    12. Langella P
    13. Richard ML
    14. Sokol H

    (2018) Enterobacteriaceae are essential for the modulation of colitis severity by fungi

    Microbiome 6:152.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-018-0538-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. van Tilburg Bernardes E
    2. Pettersen VK
    3. Gutierrez MW
    4. Laforest-Lapointe I
    5. Jendzjowsky NG
    6. Cavin JB
    7. Vicentini FA
    8. Keenan CM
    9. Ramay HR
    10. Samara J
    11. MacNaughton WK
    12. Wilson RJA
    13. Kelly MM
    14. McCoy KD
    15. Sharkey KA
    16. Arrieta MC

    (2020) Intestinal fungi are causally implicated in microbiome assembly and immune development in mice

    Nature Communications 11:2577.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16431-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Waldman AJ
    2. Balskus EP

    (2018) The human microbiota, infectious disease, and global health: challenges and opportunities

    ACS Infectious Diseases 4:14–26.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/acsinfecdis.7b00232

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Wang L
    2. Cai Y
    3. Garssen J
    4. Henricks PAJ
    5. Folkerts G
    6. Braber S

    (2023) The bidirectional gut-lung axis in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

    American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 207:1145–1160.

    https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202206-1066TR

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Wheeler ML
    2. Limon JJ
    3. Underhill DM

    (2017) Immunity to commensal fungi: detente and disease

    Annual Review of Pathology 12:359–385.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-pathol-052016-100342

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Yang F
    2. Yang Y
    3. Chen L
    4. Zhang Z
    5. Liu L
    6. Zhang C
    7. Mai Q
    8. Chen Y
    9. Chen Z
    10. Lin T
    11. Chen L
    12. Guo H
    13. Zhou L
    14. Shen H
    15. Chen X
    16. Liu L
    17. Zhang G
    18. Liao H
    19. Zeng L
    20. Zeng G

    (2022) The gut microbiota mediates protective immunity against tuberculosis via modulation of lncRNA

    Gut Microbes 14:2029997.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/19490976.2022.2029997

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. You JS
    2. Yong JH
    3. Kim GH
    4. Moon S
    5. Nam KT
    6. Ryu JH
    7. Yoon MY
    8. Yoon SS

    (2019) Commensal-derived metabolites govern Vibrio cholerae pathogenesis in host intestine

    Microbiome 7:132.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-019-0746-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Yunusbaeva M
    2. Borodina L
    3. Terentyeva D

    (2024) Excess fermentation and lactic acidosis as detrimental functions of the gut microbes in treatment-naive TB patients

    Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 14:1331521.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2024.1331521

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Zheng SY
    2. Shao X
    3. Qi Z
    4. Yan M
    5. Tao MH
    6. Wu XM
    7. Zhang L
    8. Ma J
    9. Li A
    10. Chang MX

    (2023) Zebrafish nos2a benefits bacterial proliferation via suppressing ROS and inducing NO production to impair the expressions of inflammatory cytokines and antibacterial genes

    Fish & Shellfish Immunology 142:109178.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2023.109178

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Zhu BD
    2. Feng Y
    3. Huang N
    4. Wu Q
    5. Wang BY

    (2003)

    Mycobacterium bovis bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) enhances human beta-defensin-1 gene transcription in human pulmonary gland epithelial cells

    Acta Pharmacologica Sinica 24:907–912.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. MeiQing Han

   1. Department of Tuberculosis, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University, Weihui, China
   2. Department of Pathogenic Biology, School of Basic Medical Science, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, China

   Contribution

   Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

2. Xia Wang

   Department of Tuberculosis, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University, Weihui, China

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Lin Su

   Department of Pathogenic Biology, School of Basic Medical Science, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, China

   Contribution

   Investigation, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Shiqi Pan

   Department of Pathogenic Biology, School of Basic Medical Science, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, China

   Contribution

   Investigation, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Ningning Liu

   Department of Pathogenic Biology, School of Basic Medical Science, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, China

   Contribution

   Investigation, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Duan Li

   Department of Pathogenic Biology, School of Basic Medical Science, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, China

   Contribution

   Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Liang Liu

   Department of Pathogenic Biology, School of Basic Medical Science, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, China

   Contribution

   Software

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. JunWei Cui

   Department of Tuberculosis, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University, Weihui, China

   Contribution

   Software, Supervision

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Huajie Zhao

   Department of Pathogenic Biology, School of Basic Medical Science, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, China

   Contribution

   Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   zhaohuajiebest@163.com

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Fan Yang

    1. Department of Tuberculosis, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University, Weihui, China
    2. Department of Pathogenic Biology, School of Basic Medical Science, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, China

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing

    For correspondence

    yangf77@163.com

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9582-1394

• 440

  views

• 36

  downloads

• 0

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.