Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:30:37.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Guts, germs and glucose: understanding the effects of prematurity on the interaction between bacteria and nutrient absorption across the intestine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2011

David J. Hackam*
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, One Children's Hospital Drive, 4401 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15224, USA, fax +1 412 692 8299, email [email protected] Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, 15224, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Invited Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2011

It is well known that necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) is one of the leading causes of death in preterm infants, and is by far the leading cause of long-term morbidity and mortality in infants from gastrointestinal causes(Reference Neu and Walker1). However, despite numerous theories that have been advanced in order to define the causes of NEC, the precise underpinnings of this disease remain incompletely understood(Reference Neu and Walker1Reference Afrazi, Sodhi and Richardson3). One consistent feature in infants who develop NEC is the observation that this devastating disease develops almost exclusively after feeds have been initiated and in the setting of microbial colonisation of the intestine, raising the distinct possibility that an underlying inability of the premature infant to tolerate bacterial products and feeds may be central in NEC pathogenesis(Reference Lin and Hackam4). In this issue, Bering et al. (Reference Bering, Bai and Zhang5) seek to test this possibility directly, and in particular have evaluated the novel hypothesis that preterm birth increases the sensitivity of intestinal nutrient absorption to bacterial endotoxins – lipopolysaccharides – that are integral constituents of the cell wall of certain bacteria that are present within the intestinal tract – and that feeding after birth reduces this response. From ex vivo studies, Bering et al. describe that the preterm piglet intestine displays reduced absorption of feeds compared to term intestine, and that the administration of feeds to the piglet restored absorption to the levels seen in full-term animals. Interestingly, the exposure of bacteria to the intestinal samples resulted in a marked reduction in the absorption of nutrients in both term and preterm piglets. It is noteworthy that the greatest reduction in the extent of nutrient absorption was observed after stimulation of intestine with bacteria that had been obtained from pigs with NEC, providing insights into the physiological relevance of the present findings. And while prematurity was not found to influence the ability of the intestine to respond to bacteria or nutrient absorption, these findings raise the possibility that bacteria may exert previously unrecognised effects on the ability of the host to absorb nutrients, and may indeed provide a link between the seemingly unrelated risk factors for NEC in feeds and bacterial exposure.

It is useful to place the present findings in the context of what is generally known to occur with respect to the interaction between nutrient absorption and bacterial exposure in the intestine. Previous authors have shown that infants and adults with systemic infections and with gastrointestinal disease exhibit impaired nutrient absorption, although the mechanisms involved remain incompletely understood(Reference Jeejeebhoy6, Reference Davies7). However, previous authors have not fully assessed the relationship between prematurity and nutrient absorption in the presence or absence of NEC-related microbes as the authors now accomplish. Secondly, while it is known that the expression of the membrane proteins that mediate the transport of nutrients across the intestinal epithelium is initially low at birth and increases with age(Reference Toloza and Diamond8Reference Commare and Tappenden10), the specific effects of bacterial exposure on these processes, and the contribution of prematurity to the degree of acquisition of absorption capacity have not been explored in great detail. Moreover, by using a large animal model system that shares features with the human infant intestine, and by utilising a robust ex vivo experimental system, the authors are now able to take a unique reductionist approach to address these questions.

So how do the present findings fit within the conceptual framework of factors that lead to the development of NEC? Much interest in the field has focused broadly on how the premature host fails to adapt appropriately to its indigenous flora, and instead mounts a deleterious pro-inflammatory response first within the intestine and then systemically, leading to NEC. In determining the individual steps which lead to the cascade that culminates in NEC, investigators have shown that the release of pro-inflammatory Molecules such as platelet activating factor plays a role in NEC pathogenesis(Reference Frost, Jilling and Caplan11), while signalling through heparin-binding epidermal growth factor may play a protective role in this disease(Reference El-Assal, Radulescu and Besner12). Others(Reference Nanthakumar, Meng and Goldstein13, Reference Nanthakumar, Fusunyan and Sanderson14) have shown that the intestinal epithelium in the premature host is more apt to releasing pro-inflammatory cytokines when compared with post-natal intestine, while a causative role for an underdeveloped intestinal microcirculation that predisposes to impaired perfusion has also been proposed(Reference Ito, Doelle and Clark15, Reference Yu, Radulescu and Zorko16). Finally, we and others(Reference Jilling, Simon and Lu17Reference Gribar, Sodhi and Richardson19) have identified an important role for aberrant activation of the innate immune system of the intestinal epithelium in disease pathogenesis. It is therefore possible that each of these aetiological factors is influenced variably in the premature intestine by the presence of nutrients in the gut and by exposure to bacteria. Further studies along the lines of those that have been performed by Bering et al. will need to be completed in order to fully clarify how each of these factors may act in concert in the steps that lead to NEC development.

It is noteworthy that the present study sought to evaluate a potential role for the lipopolysaccharide receptor, Toll-like receptor (TLR)-4, in the present model. Such a role may indeed have been predicted, given that the authors do demonstrate that bacteria and lipopolysaccharide affect intestinal function within the piglet intestine ex vivo. However, the authors did not demonstrate any differences in TLR-4 expression between premature and full-term piglets, despite observing an effect of bacterial exposure on nutrient absorption. These findings are difficult to reconcile in view of an abundance of studies showing the importance of TLR-4 signalling in the gut to the pathogenesis of NEC(Reference Jilling, Simon and Lu17, Reference Gribar, Sodhi and Richardson19Reference Sodhi, Shi and Richardson22), as well as studies that have shown that TLR-4 expression is elevated in the premature intestine under conditions that lead to NEC in a variety of species including humans(Reference Leaphart, Cavallo and Gribar18, Reference Liu, Zhu and Fatheree23). It is possible therefore that the findings in the present study in which changes in TLR-4 expression between premature and postnatal piglet intestine were not detected may simply reflect differences between piglets and other species. Additional investigations in which the piglet intestine is examined from various regions of the bowel and at varying gestational ages may be required in order to fully determine the precise role – if any – of enterocyte TLR-4 in the steps by which bacteria may affect nutrient absorption using the present ex vivo system.

In summary, the present findings provide useful information regarding the role of prematurity and bacteria on nutritional absorption across the intestine. While the findings do not provide a definitive link between these factors in a model of NEC, they clearly offer an additional piece to the vast and complex puzzle that characterises the development of NEC.

References

1Neu, J & Walker, WA (2011) Necrotizing enterocolitis. N Engl J Med 363, 255264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Gribar, SC, Richardson, WM, Sodhi, CP, et al. (2008) No longer an innocent bystander: epithelial toll-like receptor signaling in the development of mucosal inflammation. Mol Med 14, 645659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Afrazi, A, Sodhi, CP, Richardson, W, et al. (2011) New insights into the pathogenesis and treatment of necrotizing enterocolitis: toll-like receptors and beyond. Pediatr Res 69, 183188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Lin, J & Hackam, DJ (2011) Worms, flies and four-legged friends: the applicability of biological models to the understanding of intestinal inflammatory diseases. Dis Model Mech 4, 447456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Bering, BB, Bai, S, Zhang, K, et al. (2011) Prematurity does not markedly affect intestinal sensitivity to endotoxins and feeding in pigs. Br J Nutr 108, 672681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Jeejeebhoy, KN (2004) Enteral feeding. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 20, 110113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Davies, AR (2007) Practicalities of nutrition support in the intensive care unit. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 10, 284290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Toloza, EM & Diamond, J (1992) Ontogenetic development of nutrient transporters in rat intestine. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 263, G593G604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Jiang, L, David, ES, Espina, N, et al. (2001) GLUT-5 expression in neonatal rats: crypt–villus location and age-dependent regulation. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 281, G666G674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Commare, EE & Tappenden, KA (2007) Development of the infant intestine: implications for nutrition support. Nutr Clin Pract 22, 159173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Frost, BL, Jilling, T & Caplan, MS (2008) The importance of pro-inflammatory signaling in neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis. Semin Perinatol 32, 100106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12El-Assal, ON, Radulescu, A & Besner, GE (2007) Heparin-binding EGF-like growth factor preserves mesenteric microcirculatory blood flow and protects against intestinal injury in rats subjected to hemorrhagic shock and resuscitation. Surgery 142, 234242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Nanthakumar, N, Meng, D, Goldstein, AM, et al. (2011) The mechanism of excessive intestinal inflammation in necrotizing enterocolitis: an immature innate immune response. PLoS ONE 6, e17776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Nanthakumar, NN, Fusunyan, RD, Sanderson, I, et al. (2000) Inflammation in the developing human intestine: a possible pathophysiologic contribution to necrotizing enterocolitis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97, 60436048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Ito, Y, Doelle, SM, Clark, JA, et al. (2007) Intestinal microcirculatory dysfunction during the development of experimental necrotizing enterocolitis. Pediatr Res 61, 180184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Yu, X, Radulescu, A, Zorko, N, et al. (2009) Heparin-binding EGF-like growth factor increases intestinal microvascular blood flow in necrotizing enterocolitis. Gastroenterology 137, 221230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Jilling, T, Simon, D, Lu, J, et al. (2006) The roles of bacteria and TLR4 in rat and murine models of necrotizing enterocolitis. J Immunol 177, 32733282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Leaphart, CL, Cavallo, JC, Gribar, SC, et al. (2007) A critical role for TLR4 in the pathogenesis of necrotizing enterocolitis by modulating intestinal injury and repair. J Immunol 179, 48084820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Gribar, SC, Sodhi, CP, Richardson, WM, et al. (2009) Reciprocal expression and signaling of TLR4 and TLR9 in the pathogenesis and treatment of necrotizing enterocolitis. J Immunol 182, 636646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Dai, S, Sodhi, CP, Cetin, S, et al. (2010) Extracellular high mobility group box1 (HMGB1) inhibits enterocyte migration via activation of toll like receptor 4 and increased cell-matrix adhesiveness. J Biol Chem 285, 49955002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Richardson, WM, Sodhi, CP, Russo, A, et al. (2010) Nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain-2 inhibits toll like receptor-4 signaling in the intestinal epithelium. Gastroenterology 139, 904917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Sodhi, CP, Shi, XH, Richardson, WM, et al. (2010) Toll-like receptor-4 inhibits enterocyte proliferation via impaired beta-catenin signaling in necrotizing enterocolitis. Gastroenterology 138, 185196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Liu, Y, Zhu, L, Fatheree, NY, et al. (2009) Changes in intestinal Toll-like receptors and cytokines precede histological injury in a rat model of necrotizing enterocolitis. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 297, G442G450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar