Mucosal microbiota transplant, clearing the gut mucosa prior to FMT Enhancing 

Enhancing the outcomes of FMT

Michael Harrop

Active member
Joined
Jul 6, 2023
Messages
987
Location
USA
I posted about this a few years ago elsewhere [1][2][3] and I'm copying all the info here for easy discussion.


"While fecal microbiota is partially normalized by extended co-housing, mucosal communities associated with the proximal colon and terminal ileum remain stable and distinct". Comparison of Co-housing and Littermate Methods for Microbiota Standardization in Mouse Models (May 2019). https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(19)30488-7

For the people who don't know, mice eat each other's poop, thus naturally do FMT when co-housed.

This study seems to show that FMT is not enough to change the mucosal microbiome. Thus it seems like something like this would be necessary to enhance FMT:

By destroying the mucous membrane in the small intestine and causing a new one to develop, scientists stabilized the blood sugar levels of people with type 2 diabetes. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/24/spectacular-diabetes-treatment-could-end-daily-insulin-injections

Duodenal Mucosal Resurfacing Elicits Improvement in Glycemic and Hepatic Parameters in Type 2 Diabetes—One-Year Multicenter Study Results (2018): https://diabetesjournals.org/diabetes/article/67/Supplement_1/1137-P/54118/Duodenal-Mucosal-Resurfacing-Elicits-Improvement

When destroying the membrane you're basically clearing the forest, which includes pathogens which may be responsible for diabetes. It's likely that if their method actually clears and replaces it without significant damage (unlike antibiotics) it could help many more conditions than diabetes.

Previously I emailed a bunch of IBS & CFS researchers asking them to test that mucosal clearing either by itself or in conjunction with FMT, but it didn't seem like any were willing/able.

Someone should also test (in vitro then in mouse models) various substances that degrade/clear the gut mucosa to see if you can find one that safely boosts the ability of FMT to replace the mucus microbiota. Basically a chemical version of the method above. N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) might be one. Try while liquid fasting too.

Someone suggested:
Utilizing proteolytic enzymes may be interesting. Even to go as far as doing a retention enema to allow the enzymes to break down biofilms and the mucosal layers.

And relevant to the "in vitro" part: GuMI: New In Vitro Platforms to Parse the Human Gut Epithelial-Microbiome-Immune Axis https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-EB021908-02

My worry is that the fecal microbiome isn't adequate, and a gut microbiome transfer will require harvesting the mucosal microbiome. But an experiment like this should help to further our understanding of this.

I'm thinking there might be some type of layers. Like the microbes transferred by FMT are only able to occupy some top layer or small niches where they're able to feed on the food coming through, but unable to penetrate further down into the mucus.

This is very much inline with my own current FMT experience where the donor microbes seem to be very easily lost - such as by using iodized salt (iodine is an antimicrobial) - and I have to keep adding them.


Mucosal microbiota transplant?​

I was thinking more about "while fecal microbiota is partially normalized by extended co-housing, mucosal communities associated with the proximal colon and terminal ileum remain stable and distinct".

It should be possible to do a mucosal microbiota transplant by swabbing/collecting mucosa samples from the colon, immediately submerging them in saline to protect anaerobes, and then feeding that liquid to other mice and see how it compares to FMT/co-housing. I would also compare feeding the mucosa liquid while the recipient mouse was fasting vs not fasting.

I did a google scholar search for "mucus microbiota transplant" and didn't see anything on it.

We could even do it in humans, it would just be slightly more invasive for the donor than FMT. I've had a colonoscopy done while I was not sedated. It was painful as the object made its way through the turns especially, but perhaps we don't need to use such a large object, making it less painful.

For reference, the mucosal microbiota seems to be significantly different from the fecal microbiota:
Mucus: A Special Home of Our Microbes (2018): https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/495115#scrollNav-4 "So far, we know that the mucus of surface epithelia seems to be one of the most important habitats for host-associated bacteria"

Differential clustering of fecal and mucosa-associated microbiota in ‘healthy’ individuals (2018): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1751-2980.12688 "Analysis of faecal samples that have been transported at ambient temperature does not adequately reflect the colonic mucosa-associated microbiota in healthy individuals"

Gut mucosal-associated microbiota better discloses Inflammatory Bowel Disease differential patterns than faecal microbiota (2018): https://www.dldjournalonline.com/article/S1590-8658(18)31260-X/abstract

Bacteriophage Adherence to Mucus Mediates Preventive Protection against Pathogenic Bacteria (Mar 2019): https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.01984-19

Analysis of Transcriptionally Active Bacteria Throughout the Gastrointestinal Tract of Healthy Individuals (June 2019) https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(19)40986-4/fulltext "In an analysis of saliva, mucosal, and fecal samples from 21 healthy adults, we found each individual, and each GI region, to have a different bacterial community. The fecal microbiome is not representative of the mucosal microbiome."

Composition of the mucosa-associated microbiota along the entire gastrointestinal tract of human individuals (May 2019) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2050640619852255 "gastrointestinal location is a larger determinant of mucosal microbial diversity than inter-person differences. The bacterial load of mucosal samples decreased from oesophagus to proximal ileum, but drastically increased again in the lower GI tract. The composition of the microbiota markedly changes along the GI tract with larger diversity in the lower GI tract than the upper GI tract."

Conflicting data:

Maybe the ultimate end game will be clearing the mucosa in the recipient and using mucosa microbiota from the donor, but for now, maybe whichever one is easier could be a significant improvement on its own compared to standard FMT.
 
Last edited:
By destroying the mucous membrane in the small intestine and causing a new one to develop, scientists stabilized the blood sugar levels of people with type 2 diabetes. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/24/spectacular-diabetes-treatment-could-end-daily-insulin-injections

Duodenal Mucosal Resurfacing Elicits Improvement in Glycemic and Hepatic Parameters in Type 2 Diabetes—One-Year Multicenter Study Results (2018): https://diabetesjournals.org/diabetes/article/67/Supplement_1/1137-P/54118/Duodenal-Mucosal-Resurfacing-Elicits-Improvement

When destroying the membrane you're basically clearing the forest, which includes pathogens which may be responsible for diabetes. It's likely that if their method actually clears and replaces it without significant damage (unlike antibiotics) it could help many more conditions than diabetes.

Unfortunate that they didn't seem to test the microbiota of the mucus before and after treatment. If it fully changes the mucus membrane then surely it must have a huge impact on the microbes living there. Maybe most of the microbes will be lost with it, which makes me wonder what microbes will end up in the new membrane and the risks of performing it on a larger part of the intestine than just the duodenum.

Maybe the ultimate end game will be clearing the mucosa in the recipient and using mucosa microbiota from the donor, but for now, maybe whichever one is easier could be a significant improvement on its own compared to standard FMT.

The problem with using Duodenal Mucosal Resurfacing though is that you won't be able to treat most of the small intestine since it relies on using an endoscope. In the article it also said that it took 1 hour to just treat the duodenum, so the feasibility of doing this to the entire small and/or large intestine seems rather low.

Ingesting something that can affect the mucosal layer is probably going to be the easiest method of altering the mucosa if this is important for the success of FMT.
 
This is a literature review I did evaluating the above-cited evidence that there is a significant difference between the mucosal and fecal microbiomes in humans. My conclusion is that there is insufficent evidence due to two issues with the research: 1) the use of mouse studies and 2) the use of bowel prep prior to endoscopic collection of mucosal samples in humans. The GI tracts of mice are different from that of humans on a structural and cellular level so we should be careful when attempting to translate scientific conclusions from one to the other that may be affected by these differences. More info at the end of the post. Osmotic laxative bowel prep prior to colonoscopy entails consuming large amounts of laxatives that flood the mucosa with water and clear out huge amounts of bacteria. Expecting the mucosal microbiota to look similar before and after this type of prep is a poor assumption that should have been cited as a limitation in these studies.

1) Comparison of Co-housing and Littermate Methods for Microbiota Standardization in Mouse Models
  • Mouse study. Unlikely to be directly translatable to humans.
  • See pictures attached.

2) Mucus: A Special Home of Our Microbes (2018)
  • The evidence seems to be in citations 9 and 10: "Structure and metabolic function differ greatly between bacteria residing in the lumen and the outer layer, which is rich in mucus-related sugars [9, 10]"
  • Citation #9. Mouse data, likely not directly translatable. Even the supporting evidence referenced within the article is based on mouse data.
  • Citation #10. Does not demonstrate that the bacterial communities in mucus are significantly different from those in the lumen. In fact it potentially suggests the opposite:
  • "Previous studies on mucus utilization by B. thetaiotaomicron and A. muciniphila have suggested that mucus utilization is reserved for a subset of the intestinal microbiota (Derrien et al., 2004; Sonnenburg et al., 2005; Tailford et al., 2015a). However, we found that 64% of the tested strains belonging to the Clostridiales order were capable of growing on mucin as a sole carbon source. These findings suggest that the mucin-utilizing capacity of the intestinal microbiome has been underappreciated."

3) Differential clustering of fecal and mucosa-associated microbiota in ‘healthy’ individuals (2018)
- Sampling technique: Endoscopy, meaning osmotic laxative bowel prep.

4) Gut mucosal-associated microbiota better discloses Inflammatory Bowel Disease differential patterns than faecal microbiota (2018)
- Sampling technique: Not specified in free version but probably colonoscopy due to the use of the terms "biopsy" and "regardless of disease location." Emailed the author.

5) Bacteriophage Adherence to Mucus Mediates Preventive Protection against Pathogenic Bacteria (Mar 2019)
- Does not provide evidence that mucosal microbiome different from fecal, just that "mucin exposure modifies the physiology of bacteria." All or most bacteria in the colon are likely exposed to mucins due to the constant shedding of the outer mucus layer.

6) Analysis of Transcriptionally Active Bacteria Throughout the Gastrointestinal Tract of Healthy Individuals (June 2019)
- Sampling technique: Lower endoscopy, osmotic laxative bowel prep.

7) Composition of the mucosa-associated microbiota along the entire gastrointestinal tract of human individuals (May 2019)
- Sampling technique: Double balloon enteroscopy through the mouth and anus. Osmotic laxative bowel prep.


Discussion
1) I did not find convincing evidence in the above studies that the human microbiota are significantly different from each other in the mucus layer versus in the lumen.
2) This belief may have stemmed from the inappropriate application of mouse data to humans and the under-appreciated effects that laxatives have on the microbiota in the mucosa.
3) There was one human study that did not replicate these findings, and they did not use bowel prep.
Fecal samples and rectal swabs adequately reflect the human colonic luminal microbiota
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19490976.2024.2416912
4) It's plausible a thicker mucus layer as opposed to an absent one would result in better FMT engraftment in humans by providing nourishment for the incoming bacteria, and an over-abundance of mucus degrading bacteria in a person with a particularly unhealthy gut might result in excessive colonization resistance to FMT.

"IBD patients also have a thinner inner mucus layer and reduced glycosylation of MUC2 (Fyderek et al., 2009; Larsson et al., 2011). These alterations in mucus production likely contribute to reduced commensal fitness, driving the microbial dysbiosis in IBD patients. Together, these observations suggest the relevance of intestinal mucins in establishing bacterial colonization and maintaining health-promoting functions of the microbiome, such as tryptophan metabolism."

5) Bacteriophages seem to live within the mucus layer (see paper #5 of the lit review) so a thicker mucus layer would also hypothetically facilitate their engraftment via FMT.


Mouse versus Human GI Systems

I found this article enlightening.
How informative is the mouse for human gut microbiota research? (2015)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4283646/
"Although these differences do not mean that the murine model is not valuable to study host-microbiota interactions, care must be taken in making direct parallels between murine and human gut with regard to microbiota composition, because host-microbiota co-evolution could have been influenced by these anatomical divergences."

Some notes from the article:
  • Cross-sections of mouse and human colons appear markedly different (see 2nd attached picture).
  • The murine colon is relatively smooth whereas the human colon has pouches called haustra and more transverse folds.
  • Fermentation occurs in the large intestine in humans, not the vestigial cecum, but the cecum is relatively large in the mouse with fermentation capacity.
  • Goblet cells (which generate mucins) are abundant throughout the human colon but significantly less so in the distal colon and rectum of mice.
  • The distribution of antimicrobial-producing Paneth cells is also different.
  • Disturbingly the article indicates, "most human gut microbiome studies use stool samples, whereas cecal contents are usually used in mouse gut microbiome studies." The murine cecum does not even have a good direct parallel in the human GI tract, particularly on a microscopic level.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20250202-141542_Firefox.jpg
    Screenshot_20250202-141542_Firefox.jpg
    140 KB · Views: 1
  • Screenshot_20250202_170355.jpg
    Screenshot_20250202_170355.jpg
    65.3 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
"While fecal microbiota is partially normalized by extended co-housing, mucosal communities associated with the proximal colon and terminal ileum remain stable and distinct". Comparison of Co-housing and Littermate Methods for Microbiota Standardization in Mouse Models (May 2019). https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(19)30488-7

For the people who don't know, mice eat each other's poop, thus naturally do FMT when co-housed.
There are several factors to consider when translating the conclusions of this and other FMT mouse studies to humans that I did not elucidate in my previous post.
  • Mouse FMTs do not bypass any of their GI tract while human FMTs seek to bypass the acid-producing stomach and antimicrobial-compound producing Paneth cells in the small intestine. The murine small intestine is also lined with Paneth cells.
  • There is likely a meaningful dosage difference in mouse FMTs versus the human FMTs typically studied: small amounts over time versus a single high dose.
  • The comparatively small dose of mouse FMTs means we should, at a minimum, be considering how the antimicrobial effects of the murine Paneth cells may be affecting the results. (We should be thinking about this regardless of dose size, really.)
  • Paneth cells are located on the epithelial, and likely have a larger effect on mucosal microbiota than the microbiota in the lumen, although they are known to affect both. (Particularly relevant for this discussion.)
  • Proximal colon: One location cited in the article. It follows the small intestine and cecum where Paneth cells are located, which have antimicrobial effects.
  • Terminal ileum: Another location cited in the article. The murine small intestine lacks the mucosal folds seen in humans (see picture #1 in above post) which possibly makes it harder for bacteria to penetrate the small intestinal mucus layer in mice as compared to humans. There are also numerous Paneth cells here in contrast to the colonic mucosa of humans and mice.
 
Last edited:
human FMTs seek to bypass the acid-producing stomach and antimicrobial-compound producing Paneth cells in the small intestine
This is not correct. https://humanmicrobiome.info/fmt/#upper-vs-lower-routes

In the ASU study they drank the liquid straight.

The comparatively small dose of mouse FMTs
Why do you say this? They're chowing down on whole stools pooped out by the other mice. That seems like a larger dose if anything. But certainly a longer dosing period compared to most human FMT studies.
 
Well it's at least partially correct i.e. lower route which obviously bypasses those things. We certainly should not be assuming mouse FMT is directly comparable to lower route human FMT, especially considering the differences sometimes seen between human upper and lower route FMT. Or do you disagree?

My understanding was that capsules were double encapsulated as opposed to single encapsulated to open later in the small intestine or at least to bypass stomach acid. If that's not the case what is the point of double versus single encapsulation for FMT? I take a type of prescription enzyme that's supposed to open in the small intestine and I assumed it was similar.

If upper-route FMT in fact does not bypass stomach acid then it is still very dissimilar to mouse FMT. Mice have a stomach pH of 3-4 and human stomach pH is 1-2. In other words the human stomach is much more deadly to bacteria, although the effect depends on the type of bacteria. For example, my understanding is Bacteroides species would not survive human stomach acid without the person first taking a PPI or acid suppressor. What is your take on that?

Why do you say this? They're chowing down on whole stools pooped out by the other mice.
I just didn't think mice are eating the equivalent of a human consuming a 50 gram stool in one sitting but maybe they are. Do you know the amount of stool they consume per kg body weight over time? I assumed it would take up a small portion of their diet but did not look up the numbers.

The reason I brought up dosage is because it is a major factor in FMT effectiveness. 5g per day for 10 days may not have the same effect as 50g at a single time, or 50g for 10 days, etc. I think we should try to figure out the approximate dose used in mice relative to humans, and use that information when trying to draw conclusions. While keeping in mind the other mouse-to-human limitations too.
 
Last edited:
My understanding was that capsules were double encapsulated
It's done, it's just not necessarily needed.

If that's not the case what is the point of double versus single encapsulation for FMT?
I've seen occasional complaints about "poop burps". Some people have also not wanted to see poop in the capsules at all due to personal revulsion. So there are a few additional reasons.

PPI or acid suppressor. What is your take on that?
It is still up for debate I think, but at the end of the "Before the procedure" section (https://humanmicrobiome.info/fmt/#before-the-procedure) there's a citation against it.

Do you know the amount of stool they consume per kg body weight over time?
I don't recall ever seeing that mentioned, but it would certainly be interesting to know. I just did a search for "mice coprophagy" but don't see anything on the amount they eat.
 
Back
Top