Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mBio
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • AAM Fellows
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
mBio
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mBio
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • AAM Fellows
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
Research Article | Therapeutics and Prevention

Durable Long-Term Bacterial Engraftment following Encapsulated Fecal Microbiota Transplantation To Treat Clostridium difficile Infection

Christopher Staley, Thomas Kaiser, Byron P. Vaughn, Carolyn Graiziger, Matthew J. Hamilton, Amanda J. Kabage, Alexander Khoruts, Michael J. Sadowsky
Melinda M. Pettigrew, Editor
Christopher Staley
aDivision of Basic & Translational Research, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
bBioTechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas Kaiser
aDivision of Basic & Translational Research, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
bBioTechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Byron P. Vaughn
cDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carolyn Graiziger
cDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew J. Hamilton
bBioTechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amanda J. Kabage
cDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexander Khoruts
bBioTechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA
cDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael J. Sadowsky
bBioTechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA
dDepartment of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA
eDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Michael J. Sadowsky
Melinda M. Pettigrew
Yale School of Public Health
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Janet Jansson
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Roles: Solicited external reviewer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emmanuel Mongodin
University of Maryland, School of Medicine
Roles: Solicited external reviewer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01586-19
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has become a common rescue therapy for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection, and encapsulated delivery (cFMT) of healthy donor microbiota shows similar clinical efficacy as more traditional routes of administration. In this study, we characterized long-term patterns of bacterial engraftment in a cohort of 18 patients, who received capsules from one of three donors, up to 409 days post-FMT. Bacterial communities were characterized using Illumina sequencing of the V5-V6 hypervariable regions of the 16S rRNA gene, and engraftment was determined by using the Bayesian algorithm SourceTracker. All patients recovered clinically and were free of C. difficile infection following cFMT. The majority of patients (61%) showed high levels of engraftment after the first week following FMT, which were sustained throughout the year. A small subset, 22%, experienced a decline in donor engraftment after approximately 1 month, and a few patients (17%), two of whom were taking metformin, showed delayed and low levels of donor engraftment. Members of the genera Bacteroides, Parabacteroides, and Faecalibacterium were significantly and positively correlated with donor similarity (ρ = 0.237 to 0.373, P ≤ 0.017). Furthermore, throughout the year, patient fecal communities showed significant separation based on the donor fecal microbiota that they received (P < 0.001). Results of this study, which characterize long-term engraftment following cFMT, suggest that numerical donor similarity is not strictly related to clinical outcome and identify a persistent donor-specific effect on patient fecal microbial communities. Furthermore, results suggest that members of the Bacteroidetes may be important targets to improve engraftment via cFMT.

IMPORTANCE Recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (rCDI) is the most common cause of hospital- and community-acquired diarrheal infection associated with antibiotic use. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), a treatment that involves administration of fecal bacteria from a healthy donor to a recipient patient, is a highly effective rescue therapy for rCDI that is increasingly being incorporated into standard clinical practice. Encapsulated, freeze-dried preparations of fecal microbiota, administered orally, offer the simplest and most convenient route of FMT delivery for patients (cFMT). In this study, we evaluated the extent of bacterial engraftment following cFMT and the duration of donor bacterial persistence. All patients studied recovered clinically but showed differing patterns in long-term microbial community similarity to the donor that were associated with members of the bacterial group Bacteroidetes, previously shown to be prominent contributors to rCDI resistance. Results highlight long-lasting, donor-specific effects on recipient patient microbiota and reveal potential bacterial targets to improve cFMT engraftment.

INTRODUCTION

Suppression of the intestinal microbiota, predominantly through the use of antibiotics, results in decreased colonization resistance and can lead to infection by Clostridium difficile (1). The incidence, morbidity, and mortality associated with C. difficile infections have risen over the past 2 decades, creating a major burden on the health care system (2, 3). Recurrent C. difficile infections (rCDIs), in particular, present a major clinical problem and continue to increase in incidence (4). Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), an approach that aims to restore normal intestinal microbial community structure following antibiotic-induced damage, has become standard rescue therapy to treat rCDI (5). The treatment shows a high rate of clinical success, approaching 90% (6, 7), and can be performed using microbiota from stool of prescreened, healthy donors (8, 9). Furthermore, the fecal microbiota preparations may be encapsulated for easier administration (10, 11). Capsule delivery (cFMT) has shown similar clinical results as colonoscopic administration in a randomized clinical trial (12). However, while colonoscopic delivery results in a restoration of a healthy microbiota composition within several days (13), delivery of microbiota by capsule results in punctuated changes in the composition of the microbiota, taking several weeks to taxonomically resemble a donor-like, intestinal microbial community despite resolution of clinical symptoms (14).

There remains considerable uncertainty with regard to the stability of post-FMT microbiota. In a four-patient study with dense sampling, we observed some divergence in taxonomic composition of the initial, post-engraftment microbiota away from the donor sample over up to a 5-month period following colonoscopic FMT (13). However, these shifts were similar to the normal temporal variation observed in healthy donor samples. Similarly, a single-patient report of a recovered rCDI patient showed compositional fluctuations through 7 months following FMT (15), with further normalization to resemble order-level donor microbiota composition after 4.5 years (16). A similar study of 14 rCDI patients noted that the patient microbiota composition following FMT was more highly correlated with those of donors (x̄ = 95.3%) than would be expected given normal, interpersonal variability (x̄ = 77.4%), and engraftment persisted through a 1-year follow-up (17). Robust characterization of individualized donor bacterial engraftment patterns, beyond observational remarks or correlative analysis, however, has not been evaluated in long-term studies. Furthermore, key taxa that promote bacterial engraftment and resolution of clinical symptoms have not been conclusively described.

We previously reported that cFMT causes incremental shifts in the intestinal microbiota composition, with stepwise progression toward a community that taxonomically resembles that of the donor (14). We also observed that bacterial communities following cFMT showed greater similarity to microbiota from a pool of healthy donors, rather than to the microbiota of their specific donor (18), suggesting that cFMT may result in healthy bacterial community reorganization, independently of specific donor similarity. We focused these initial studies on the early post-treatment events because the clinical efficacy of FMT in breaking the cycle of CDI recurrence is typically assessed at ∼2 months following treatment. However, a substantial fraction of rCDI patients treated with FMT remain vulnerable to CDI relapse with new antibiotic provocations (19, 20), an observation that raises concerns about the stability and resilience of the post-FMT microbiota. While we observed that the donor bacterial engraftment was stable through a 2-month follow-up time point, the extent of sustained, longer-term engraftment has thus far not been evaluated. Thus, the goals of this study were to assess long-term (over 1 year) patterns of engraftment in a subset of patients who responded to cFMT without recurrence of C. difficile infection or new antibiotic exposure. We further aimed to clarify the relationship between the empirical donor microbiota and the relative return of the patient microbiota to a “healthy” assemblage reflected by multiple individual donors. We hypothesized that, similarly to FMT administered colonoscopically, patients would show minor divergence from the donor but otherwise sustain high levels of engraftment. Results of this study reveal various patterns in long-term bacterial engraftment following cFMT, independent of clinical recovery. We further highlight the potential of species within the genus Bacteroides to serve as a keystone species in maintaining the donor bacterial signature.

RESULTS

Patient cohort.The microbiome was characterized over a period of at least 1 year from stool samples of 20 patients (Table 1). Patients received encapsulated, lyophilized donor fecal microbiota delivered orally. Of these, nine received capsules prepared from donor 6, 10 received capsules from donor 41, and one received capsules from donor 44. Two patients, one who received capsules prepared from donor 6 and the other from donor 41, experienced a recurrence of infection following the initial cFMT and were excluded from downstream analyses. Samples were grouped by categorical time points including samples collected prior to cFMT (pre-FMT) and at the following time periods after cFMT: 2 to 6 days, 7 to 21 days, 28 to 45 days, 86 to 134 days, and 346 to 409 days. This is similar to our previous reports (14, 18) and corresponds to early incremental shifts in the microbiota.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Demographics and clinical characteristics of the patients included in the stool analysis study

Microbial community diversity and composition.Incremental increases in diversity and bacterial community composition were observed in patient samples following cFMT, with a return to a donor-like assemblage after the first week. A mean Good’s coverage estimate of 99.0% ± 0.6% was achieved among all samples. Alpha diversity, characterized by using the Shannon index, was significantly lower in pre-FMT samples and increased significantly at 2 to 6 days post-FMT (post hoc P = 0.001; Fig. 1A). By the first week following cFMT, alpha diversity recovered to a similar level as that observed in donor samples and was maintained throughout the year. Similarly to alpha diversity, bacterial community composition differed significantly in the pre-FMT samples (analysis of similarity [ANOSIM] R = 0.18 to 0.85, P < 0.001), changed significantly at 2 to 6 days post-FMT (R = 0.18, P < 0.001), and was not statistically different from donor samples after the first week (R ≤ 0.22, P ≥ 0.035 at Bonferroni corrected α = 0.002; Fig. 1B). Changes in microbial (bacterial) community composition were predominantly characterized by decreases in members of the genera Fusobacterium and Lactobacillus and increases in relative abundances of Bacteroides, Blautia, Parabacteroides, Roseburia, and Faecalibacterium (Fig. 1C).

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

Microbial community diversity and composition in patient and donor samples. (A) Shannon indices in samples grouped by time point. Error bars reflect standard error, letters denote statistical differences (Tukey’s post hoc P < 0.05), and bars that share the same letter did not differ significantly. (B) Distribution of abundant genera in samples grouped by time point (mean ± standard error). (C) Principal-coordinate analysis of Bray-Curtis distances among all patient and donor samples (r2 = 0.40). Samples are grouped by days post-FMT, pre-FMT, or donor. Abundant genera that were significantly correlated with axis positions are shown.

Duration of microbial engraftment.SourceTracker software, which uses a Bayesian algorithm to determine the percentage of the community in user-defined sink (patient) samples that is attributable to source (donor) communities, was used to measure bacterial engraftment. The percentage of donor engraftment, from individual donor lots, increased significantly from days 2 to 6 to days 28 to 45 post-FMT (post hoc P = 0.026; Fig. 2A) but did not change significantly following the first weeks after FMT (P ≥ 0.739). However, significantly greater similarity was observed when all three donors were assigned as a single potential source (“combined donor”) than when only the empirically administered donor (“individual donor”) sample was used (P < 0.0001).

FIG 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2

Evaluation of donor engraftment in patient samples. (A) Mean similarity to all three donor lots (combined donor), the donor lot received (individual donor), or the patient’s pre-FMT sample, as determined by SourceTracker. (B) Patients showing sustained engraftment through the year-long follow-up. (C) Patients in whom a decline in donor similarity (approximately 20% or greater from maximum) was observed. (D) Patients in whom slow and/or poor engraftment was observed. For panels B to D, all data points were normalized to donor similarity in the patient’s pre-FMT sample and only the donor lot received was used as a source. Missing time points indicate that a sample was not collected during that period. Patients who were taking metformin are shown by triangles. Error bars reflect standard error.

Taxa primarily contributing to engraftment that persisted throughout the year were predominantly classified within the genera Bacteroides (12.27% ± 0.03% of sequence reads), Blautia (5.52% ± 0.01%), Parabacteroides (4.29% ± 0.01%), Roseburia (3.30% ± 0.01), and Faecalibacterium (2.95% ± 0.01%), corresponding to changes observed in community composition over time (Fig. 1B). Taxa within less-abundant genera (23.32% ± 0.03%), however, also contributed considerably to donor engraftment predictions using SourceTracker.

The extent and duration of engraftment varied by individual patient (Fig. 2B to D), with three general patterns observed. The majority of patients (61.1%, 11 patients) showed an increase in donor similarity after the first week post-FMT, and the extent of donor similarity remained relatively stable throughout the year (Fig. 2B). A smaller group of patients (22.2%, 4 patients) showed an increase in donor similarity through the first month, followed by a sharp decline (≥20% decline from maximum similarity) at the end of the year (Fig. 2C). A minority of patients (16.7%, 3 patients) experienced low levels of engraftment (<50% donor similarity) that occurred slowly, reaching a maximum similarity in 1-year samples (Fig. 2D). Interestingly, two of three patients taking metformin fell into this final group, with one (R74) showing no substantial increase in donor similarity following cFMT. No patients experienced a spontaneous recurrence of rCDI or gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g., diarrhea), regardless of engraftment pattern.

In order to validate SourceTracker results, donor similarity was also determined using the abundances of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) that were empirically shared between donor 6 or 41 and patient samples (Fig. 3). While the percentage of sequences belonging to shared OTUs, among all patient samples receiving capsules from either donor, was significantly greater than donor engraftment as determined by SourceTracker (P < 0.0001), results from both methods of analysis were highly correlated (ρ = 0.837, P < 0.0001). A similar percentage of shared OTUs was observed among patients who received capsules from either donor 6 or donor 41, although communities in patient samples who received capsules from donor 6 showed a greater percentage of shared OTUs at 7 to 21 and 86 to 134 days post-FMT (P = 0.018 and 0.028, respectively).

FIG 3
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 3

Similarity to donor samples using shared OTUs. Solid lines reflect the relative abundances of empirically shared OTUs. Dashed lines reflect SourceTracker (ST) predictions of donor similarity. Error bars reflect SEM.

Maintenance of donor taxonomic signatures.The donor production lot (from a single stool) used for capsule preparation did not significantly influence the percentage of engraftment at the year-end time point (analysis of variance [ANOVA], P = 0.599). However, microbial communities from patient samples collected at least 1 month post-FMT showed similar composition as that of the donor lot that the patients received and were significantly different from patients receiving lots from other donors (ANOSIM R = 0.38, P < 0.001; Fig. 4). Among individual patients, a greater alpha diversity in pre-FMT samples tended to negatively impact donor engraftment through the year-end time point, although this association was not significant (Spearman’s ρ = −0.266, P = 0.337).

FIG 4
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 4

Principal-coordinate analysis of Bray-Curtis distances among patient samples collected: 28 to 45 days (r2 = 0.38) (A), 86 to 134 (r2 = 0.21) (B), and 346 to 409 days (r2 = 0.35) (C) post-FMT. Samples are grouped by the donor lot received.

Taxonomic changes were evaluated based on the three engraftment patterns observed. Patients with sustained engraftment had an early spike of Bacteroides at 2 to 6 days post-FMT, which showed great variability among patients at subsequent time points (Fig. 5A); however, relative abundances of the predominant genera were generally stable throughout the year of follow-up. The decline in donor similarity in several patients corresponded with decreases in the abundance of the genera Bacteroides and Parabacteroides (Fig. 5B), both members of the phylum Bacteroidetes. Slower engraftment was similarly associated with a more gradual increase in the relative abundance of Bacteroides (Fig. 5C).

FIG 5
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 5

Bacterial community composition and diversity grouped by engraftment patterns. (A to C) Mean relative abundances of the five predominant genera are shown for samples from patients with sustained engraftment (A), declining engraftment (B), or slow/poor engraftment (C). (D) Mean Shannon indices for each engraftment pattern. Error bars reflect SEM.

Spearman correlation analysis, done among all samples, further revealed significant positive correlations between the relative abundances of Bacteroides, Parabacteroides, or Faecalibacterium and percent donor similarity (Spearman’s ρ = 0.237, 0.373, and 0.239; P = 1.0 × 10−4 to 1.7 × 10−2). Pairwise differences in genus abundances, however, were not significant among the engraftment patterns at the same time point (post hoc P > 0.05). Similarly, differences in alpha diversity at the year time point did not vary significantly among the groups (P ≥ 0.464).

We further investigated population-level changes among members of the genus Bacteroides by using oligotype analysis. This analysis uses single nucleotide polymorphisms of 16S rRNA to identify likely strains within a target genus, offering greater resolution than that seen with OTU binning (21). Sixteen oligotypes were observed among all samples, with 10 oligotypes each observed in samples from donors 6 and 41, and six observed in samples from donor 44. Among all samples in which Bacteroides was detected, the donor samples harbored significantly more oligotypes than did the patient samples (post hoc P ≤ 0.003), and significantly fewer oligotypes were observed in pre-FMT samples relative to donors (P < 0.0001). Typically, oligotype diversity expanded in patient samples following cFMT, but usually only 2 to 4 engrafted (see Fig. S1 to S3 in the supplemental material). Changes in oligotype abundance had correspondence with the patients’ overall engraftment pattern, where divergence from the donor was associated with a reorganization of the oligotype assemblage or absence of members of the Bacteroides.

FIG S1

Bacteroides oligotypes among patients that showed sustained engraftment. The black line represents overall similarity to the donor sample. In samples in which oligotypes are absent but donor similarity is shown, Bacteroides were not detected. Similarly, patients not shown had a high frequency of Bacteroides non-detects among all samples. Download FIG S1, DOCX file, 0.6 MB.
Copyright © 2019 Staley et al.

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

FIG S2

Bacteroides oligotypes among patients that showed declines of engraftment. The black line represents overall similarity to the donor sample. In samples in which oligotypes are absent but donor similarity is shown, Bacteroides were not detected. Similarly, patients not shown had a high frequency of Bacteroides non-detects among all samples. Download FIG S2, DOCX file, 0.2 MB.
Copyright © 2019 Staley et al.

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

FIG S3

Bacteroides oligotypes among samples from R48, who showed slow engraftment. The black line represents overall similarity to the donor sample. In samples in which oligotypes are absent but donor similarity is shown, Bacteroides were not detected. Similarly, patients not shown had a high frequency of Bacteroides non-detects among all samples. Download FIG S3, DOCX file, 0.05 MB.
Copyright © 2019 Staley et al.

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

DISCUSSION

In this study, we tracked bacterial engraftment from encapsulated, freeze-dried donor preparations, delivered orally, through a year-long follow-up. Among patients who recovered from rCDI, the majority showed high levels of engraftment (≥70% similarity) after 1 week following cFMT, which was typically sustained throughout the year. This is similar to the previous report on 14 Finnish patients who received colonoscopic FMT, where recipient intestinal microbiota remained highly correlated (>90%) with that of the donor over 1 year (17). However, we (13) and others (15) also noted divergence of recipient fecal communities within the year following FMT. Moreover, a retrospective, longitudinal study of 93 rCDI patients receiving colonoscopic FMT observed that microbial communities in patients who responded to FMT showed greater differences in beta diversity than those patients who had recurrence (22). Importantly, we also noted differing patterns in both early and long-term engraftment stability following cFMT, although all patients analyzed showed clinical recovery. This finding suggests that donor similarity itself is not specifically related to clinical resolution of rCDI, and the FMT may simply act to reorganize the community to a healthy state.

The mechanism(s) by which FMT results in clinical recovery has only been partially elucidated (23) and likely involves changes in bile acid metabolism (24, 25), as well as reconstitution of alpha diversity that provides colonization resistance against C. difficile (22, 26). We previously noted that complete bacterial engraftment was not essential for recovery from rCDI by colonoscopic FMT (27). In this current study, we both provide a novel characterization of the long-term bacterial kinetics following encapsulated FMT and further demonstrate that neither complete nor sustained donor engraftment is necessary for long-term clinical recovery. A previous study in which a defined consortia of bacteria were transplanted into a C. difficile mouse model suggested that a seed bacterial community may serve as a scaffolding for further rearrangement of the intestinal microbiota, which eventually returned to a healthy state (28). While this idea is currently speculative, it is possible that a similar phenomenon results from cFMT administration, especially with the large number of microbial species being transplanted. However, this may be a rather simplistic understanding, and reconstitution of functional gut microbiota may also be governed by other ecological principles, including founder effects from initial colonizers (29); complex cooccurrence interactions (30); niche exclusion and inclusion, secondary successions, and hysteresis (31); and stochastic effects leading to new stable states.

Despite this complexity and while the level of donor similarity showed variation, other community parameters such as alpha diversity were consistent, despite the pattern of engraftment. Interestingly, genera within the Bacteroidetes, as well as the distribution of Bacteroides oligotypes, showed the greatest association with engraftment. Members of this genus were previously shown to be the primary component of the incremental response following cFMT (14) and were highly predictive of response or recurrence (18). Early in vitro studies reported that C. difficile inhibited the growth of Bacteroides spp. (32) and suggested that members of the genus Bacteroides contributed to resistance to C. difficile recurrence. It is also interesting that patients treated with fidaxomicin, an antibiotic used to treat C. difficile infection that spares Bacteroidetes, have lower rates of recurrence relative to the broader-spectrum drug vancomycin (33).

SourceTracker was originally developed to identify sources of contamination in metagenomic data sets (34) but was not intended to measure engraftment or transfer of highly similar communities. Use of SourceTracker to identify environmental sources of pollution has been robustly demonstrated (35), but its clinical relevance has not been rigorously tested. To validate SourceTracker results, we compared the percentage of the community comprised of shared OTUs between donor and patient samples. Shared OTUs represented a significantly greater extent of engraftment than that determined by SourceTracker, suggesting that the latter provides a conservative estimate of bacterial transfer between donor and patient. Moreover, compared to the artificial “combined” donor source, we observed a >20% increase in similarity among all patient samples, as we previously reported (18). These data suggest that post-FMT rearrangement of the microbiota due to external environmental variation may still reflect a shift toward a more healthy state, irrespective of divergence from donor. Nevertheless, at the 1-year time point, patient microbiota composition differed significantly based on the donor material that patients received, suggesting a sustained influence of the donor microbiota through the first year. Further study will be necessary to evaluate the duration of this donor-specific influence.

Two patients in the current cohort experienced recurrence of rCDI following cFMT and were excluded from the analysis. One patient, who received capsules from donor 41, had a series of post-FMT complications, including knee replacement, hospital-acquired pneumonia, progressive respiratory failure, heart attack, and coma in the months following cFMT. Together, these factors almost certainly compromised bacterial engraftment. The second patient, the recipient of capsules from donor 6, received antibiotics for treatment of a urinary tract infection (UTI) and was then administered methenamine hippurate (Hiprex) for UTI suppression, which may have also interfered with engraftment. Two patients (R67 and R68) received topical antibiotics following cFMT (metronidazole and clindamycin, respectively), which did not seem to have a significant impact on bacterial engraftment. Along these lines, two of three patients taking metformin, prior to and throughout the course of the study, showed considerably lower and delayed engraftment compared to others, while the third seemed unaffected. Metformin was previously shown to alter intestinal microbiota composition (36, 37). Future study will be necessary to further disentangle the effects of metformin on FMT engraftment.

Results of this study highlight different patterns of long-term bacterial engraftment following cFMT, exclusive of clinical recovery. Notably, taxonomic similarity to the donor did not seem to influence patient recovery, although an overall donor-specific influence on taxonomic composition separated patient communities up to a year following FMT. This study was limited by a small sample size, which may not have captured all possible post-FMT patterns of engraftment. We considered many clinical factors that may have significant impact on the composition of intestinal microbiome, including various medications, history of abdominal surgery (e.g., cholecystectomy), and metabolic factors such as obesity, all of which are encountered in this very complex patient population; however, their contribution could not be resolved given the study size. Also, we did not collect systematic dietary data following cFMT treatment. Further, our study focused only on bacterial community composition, although fungal and viral communities have also shown variable engraftment kinetics associated with FMT response (16, 38, 39). While bile acid metabolism has been related to cFMT response (14, 18), further mechanistic investigations will also be necessary to characterize functional changes and potential functional redundancies associated with the various efficacious reorganizations of the intestinal microbiota.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Healthy stool donors.All stool donors qualified in accordance with the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria described previously (8) and in accordance with the Investigational New Drug Application 15071 sponsored by the University of Minnesota Microbiota Therapeutics Program, which includes infectious disease, metabolic, and autoimmune testing. Exclusion criteria also included any history of gastrointestinal diseases or surgery, food intolerances or allergies, neurologic or psychiatric disorders, or history of antibiotic exposure within 6 months (none of the donors in the program have a history of antibiotic exposure within 3 years). The body mass index of all donors in the program is ≤25 kg m−2. Health care workers are excluded from the donor program because of the potential risk of colonization with multidrug-resistant organisms. The stool was tested for viral, bacterial, and parasitic enteric pathogens, as well as vancomycin-resistant enterococci, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, and bacteria containing extended-spectrum beta-lactamases, which constitute part of the release criteria prior to clinical use. All donor activities, which include administration of questionnaires, physical exams, and laboratory testing, are approved by the University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board.

Capsule preparation.Capsules were prepared as previously described (11) using a single stool sample from each of three donors (donors 6, 41, and 44) enrolled in the University of Minnesota donor program. Briefly, fecal samples were homogenized by blending under N2 gas, sieved to remove large particles of >0.25 mm, amended with 5% trehalose, and freeze-dried. Each course of capsules represented only one fecal donation, and capsules were stored at −80°C prior to distribution to patients. Patients who received capsules from donor 6 took four capsules once representing a dose of 5 × 1011 cells, those who received capsules from donor 41 took two capsules once representing a dose of 2.1 × 1011 cells, and the patient who received capsules from donor 44 took four capsules once representing a dose of 2.5 × 1011. Differences in donor and dosage were previously reported not to affect cFMT efficacy (18).

Patients and sample collection.Detailed patient inclusion and exclusion criteria for our cFMT protocol were as described previously (11). Patients were enrolled if they had at least two prior recurrences of rCDI and were C. difficile toxin positive by PCR at least 3 months prior to treatment. Patients were administered oral vancomycin until 2 days prior to cFMT. Capsules were home delivered by a research coordinator and taken on an empty stomach, with only clear liquids for 2 h following. Patients remained in close contact with study and clinical staff throughout follow-up, and clinical recurrence was defined as a return of diarrheal symptoms and/or a positive toxin PCR result. Patients who experienced recurrence had the option of receiving a follow-up FMT by either capsule or colonoscopic delivery. This study was approved by the University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board, and all patients provided informed consent.

Fecal samples were collected in single-use toilet hats from which the patients transferred an aliquot (scoop) to a 30-ml polystyrene fecal specimen container (Globe Scientific, Inc., Paramus, NJ, USA). Samples were stored in the patients’ freezers prior to transfer on ice to the lab, where they were held at −20 to −80°C until DNA extraction. Sample collections were taken prior to cFMT (pre-FMT) and up to 409 days post-FMT. Due to the uneven nature of sample collection, samples were binned to the following day group ranges: 2 to 6 days, 7 to 21 days, 28 to 45 days, 86 to 134 days, and 346 to 409 days post-FMT, in correspondence with our previous studies (14, 18).

DNA extraction and sequencing.DNA was extracted from approximately 0.25-g aliquots of thawed stool samples by using the DNeasy PowerSoil extraction kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) and the automated QIAcube platform (inhibitor removal technology [IRT] protocol). The V5-V6 hypervariable regions of the 16S rRNA gene were amplified using the BSF784/1064R primer set (40). Illumina adapters (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) and barcodes were appended to amplicons using the dual-index method by the University of Minnesota Genomics Center (UMGC) (41), and paired-end sequencing was done on the Illumina MiSeq platform at a read length of 300 nucleotides (nt).

Bioinformatics.Sequence processing was done by using mothur software ver. 1.35.1 (42) and a previously published pipeline (18). Briefly, trimmed sequences were quality screened and aligned against the SILVA database ver. 132 (43). Operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were binned at 97% sequence similarity using the furthest-neighbor algorithm, and taxonomic classifications were made against the version 14 database from the Ribosomal Database Project (44). For unbiased statistical comparisons (45), the number of sequences per sample was rarefied to 11,000 reads by random subsampling.

SourceTracker ver 0.9.8 (34) was used with default parameters to predict the percentage of donor engraftment using (i) all three donor samples designated as a single source (“combined donor”) or (ii) only the donor lot that the patient received designated as the source (“individual donor”). To assess patterns in donor engraftment, SourceTracker predictions were normalized to pre-FMT samples by subtraction. OTUs predicted to be part of a source contribution were classified to genera for interpretation. For comparison, empirically shared OTUs were those found in both patient samples and the donor sample used to create the capsule lot that the patient received.

To further investigate changes in the Bacteroides populations of patients, oligotyping was done using version 2.1 software and suggested best practices (21). To be included in analyses, oligotypes had to have a minimum of 100 reads of a unique sequence, to account for at least 1% of sequence reads with a minimum abundance of 250 reads, and to occur in at least three patient samples. Twelve entropy points were used to differentiate oligotypes.

Statistical analyses.Good’s coverage estimate and the Shannon index (46) were calculated using mothur. Beta diversity was evaluated based on Bray-Curtis distances (47) using analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) (48), and ordination was performed by principal-coordinate analysis (49). Spearman correlations relating the relative abundances of genera and ordination position were determined using the corr.axes function in mothur. Differences in alpha diversity and engraftment were determined by ANOVA using Tukey’s post hoc test, and Spearman correlations were done to relate these two features. Statistics were calculated using XLSTAT ver. 17.06 (Addinsoft, Belmont, MA). All statistics were evaluated at α = 0.05, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

Data availability.Raw sequence data are deposited in the Sequence Read Archive of the National Center for Biotechnology Information under BioProject accession number SRP070464.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Sequence processing and analysis were done using the resources of the Minnesota Supercomputing Institute.

This research was made possible by support by grants from the NIH 1R21-AI114722-01 (A.K. and M.J.S.), Achieving Cures Together (to A.K.), and the Hubbard Foundation (to A.K.).

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 20 June 2019
    • Accepted 27 June 2019
    • Published 23 July 2019
  • Copyright © 2019 Staley et al.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Surawicz CM,
    2. Brandt LJ,
    3. Binion DG,
    4. Ananthakrishnan AN,
    5. Curry SR,
    6. Gilligan PH,
    7. McFarland LV,
    8. Mellow M,
    9. Zuckerbraun BS
    . 2013. Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Clostridium difficile infections. Am J Gastroenterol 108:478–498. doi:10.1038/ajg.2013.4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Kelly CP,
    2. Lamont JT
    . 2008. Clostridium difficile—more difficult than ever. N Engl J Med 359:1932–1940. doi:10.1056/NEJMra0707500.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Lessa FC,
    2. Mu Y,
    3. Bamberg WM,
    4. Beldavs ZG,
    5. Dumyati GK,
    6. Dunn JR,
    7. Farley MM,
    8. Holzbauer SM,
    9. Meek JI,
    10. Phipps EC,
    11. Wilson LE,
    12. Winston LG,
    13. Cohen JA,
    14. Limbago BM,
    15. Fridkin SK,
    16. Gerding DN,
    17. McDonald LC
    . 2015. Burden of Clostridium difficile infection in the United States. N Engl J Med 372:825–834. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1408913.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Ma GK,
    2. Brensinger CM,
    3. Wu Q,
    4. Lewis JD
    . 2017. Increasing incidence of multiply recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in the United States. Ann Intern Med 167:152. doi:10.7326/M16-2733.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. McDonald LC,
    2. Gerding DN,
    3. Johnson S,
    4. Bakken JS,
    5. Carroll KC,
    6. Coffin SE,
    7. Dubberke ER,
    8. Garey KW,
    9. Gould CV,
    10. Kelly C,
    11. Loo V,
    12. Shaklee Sammons J,
    13. Sandora TJ,
    14. Wilcox MH
    . 2018. Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults and children: 2017 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). Clin Infect Dis 66:987–994. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy149.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    1. Drekonja D,
    2. Reich J,
    3. Gezahegn S,
    4. Greer N,
    5. Shaukat A,
    6. MacDonald R,
    7. Rutks I,
    8. Wilt TJ
    . 2015. Fecal microbiota transplantation for Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 162:630–638. doi:10.7326/M14-2693.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Kelly C,
    2. Khoruts A,
    3. Staley C,
    4. Sadowsky M,
    5. Abd M,
    6. Alani M,
    7. Bakow B,
    8. Curran P,
    9. McKenney J,
    10. Tisch A,
    11. Reinert S,
    12. Machan J,
    13. Brandt L
    . 2016. Effect of fecal microbiota transplantation on recurrence in multiply recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 165:609–616. doi:10.7326/M16-0271.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Hamilton MJ,
    2. Weingarden AR,
    3. Sadowsky MJ,
    4. Khoruts A
    . 2012. Standardized frozen preparation for transplantation of fecal microbiota for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Am J Gastroenterol 107:761–767. doi:10.1038/ajg.2011.482.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Hamilton MJ,
    2. Weingarden AR,
    3. Unno T,
    4. Khoruts A,
    5. Sadowsky MJ
    . 2013. High-throughput DNA sequence analysis reveals stable engraftment of gut microbiota following transplantation of previously frozen fecal bacteria. Gut Microbes 4:125–135. doi:10.4161/gmic.23571.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Youngster I,
    2. Russell GH,
    3. Pindar C,
    4. Ziv-Baran T,
    5. Sauk J,
    6. Hohmann EL
    . 2014. Oral, capsulized, frozen fecal microbiota transplantation for relapsing Clostridium difficile infection. JAMA 312:1772–1778. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.13875.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    1. Staley C,
    2. Hamilton MJ,
    3. Vaughn BP,
    4. Graiziger CT,
    5. Newman KM,
    6. Kabage AJ,
    7. Sadowsky MJ,
    8. Khoruts A
    . 2017. Successful resolution of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection using freeze-dried, encapsulated microbiota; pragmatic cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol 112:940–947. doi:10.1038/ajg.2017.6.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    1. Kao D,
    2. Roach B,
    3. Silva M,
    4. Beck P,
    5. Rioux K,
    6. Kaplan GG,
    7. Chang H-J,
    8. Coward S,
    9. Goodman KJ,
    10. Xu H,
    11. Madsen K,
    12. Mason A,
    13. Wong G-S,
    14. Jovel J,
    15. Patterson J,
    16. Louie T
    . 2017. Effect of oral capsule- vs colonoscopy-delivered fecal microbiota transplantation on recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318:1985–1993. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.17077.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    1. Weingarden A,
    2. González A,
    3. Vázquez-Baeza Y,
    4. Weiss S,
    5. Humphry G,
    6. Berg-Lyons D,
    7. Knights D,
    8. Unno T,
    9. Bobr A,
    10. Kang J,
    11. Khoruts A,
    12. Knight R,
    13. Sadowsky MJ
    . 2015. Dynamic changes in short- and long-term bacterial composition following fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Microbiome 3:10. doi:10.1186/s40168-015-0070-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Staley C,
    2. Vaughn BP,
    3. Graiziger CT,
    4. Singroy S,
    5. Hamilton MJ,
    6. Yao D,
    7. Chen C,
    8. Khoruts A,
    9. Sadowsky MJ
    . 2017. Community dynamics drive punctuated engraftment of the fecal microbiome following transplantation using freeze-dried, encapsulated fecal microbiota. Gut Microbes 8:276–288. doi:10.1080/19490976.2017.1299310.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.↵
    1. Broecker F,
    2. Kube M,
    3. Klumpp J,
    4. Schuppler M,
    5. Biedermann L,
    6. Hecht J,
    7. Hombach M,
    8. Keller PM,
    9. Rogler G,
    10. Moelling K
    . 2013. Analysis of the intestinal microbiome of a recovered Clostridium difficile patient after fecal transplantation. Digestion 88:243–251. doi:10.1159/000355955.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Broecker F,
    2. Klumpp J,
    3. Schuppler M,
    4. Russo G,
    5. Biedermann L,
    6. Hombach M,
    7. Rogler G,
    8. Moelling K
    . 2016. Long-term changes of bacterial and viral compositions in the intestine of a recovered Clostridium difficile patient after fecal microbiota transplantation. Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud 2:a000448. doi:10.1101/mcs.a000448.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Jalanka J,
    2. Mattila E,
    3. Jouhten H,
    4. Hartman J,
    5. de Vos WM,
    6. Arkkila P,
    7. Satokari R
    . 2016. Long-term effects on luminal and mucosal microbiota and commonly acquired taxa in faecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. BMC Med 14:155. doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0698-z.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. Staley C,
    2. Kaiser T,
    3. Vaugh BP,
    4. Graiziger CT,
    5. Hamilton MJ,
    6. Khoruts A,
    7. Sadowsky MJ,
    8. Vaughn BP,
    9. Graiziger CT,
    10. Hamilton MJ,
    11. Khoruts A,
    12. Sadowsky MJ
    . 2018. Predicting recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection following encapsulated fecal microbiota transplantation. Microbiome 6:166. doi:10.1186/s40168-018-0549-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    1. Brandt LJ,
    2. Aroniadis OC,
    3. Mellow M,
    4. Kanatzar A,
    5. Kelly C,
    6. Park T,
    7. Stollman N,
    8. Rohlke F,
    9. Surawicz C
    . 2012. Long-term follow-up of colonoscopic fecal microbiota transplant for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Am J Gastroenterol 107:1079–1087. doi:10.1038/ajg.2012.60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Allegretti JR,
    2. Kao D,
    3. Phelps E,
    4. Roach B,
    5. Smith J,
    6. Ganapini VC,
    7. Kassam Z,
    8. Xu H,
    9. Fischer M
    . 2019. Risk of Clostridium difficile infection with systemic antimicrobial therapy following successful fecal microbiota transplant: should we recommend anti-Clostridium difficile antibiotic prophylaxis? Dig Dis Sci 64:1668–1671. doi:10.1007/s10620-018-5450-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    1. Eren AM,
    2. Maignien L,
    3. Sul WJ,
    4. Murphy LG,
    5. Grim SL,
    6. Morrison HG,
    7. Sogin ML
    . 2013. Oligotyping: differentiating between closely related microbial taxa using 16S rRNA gene data. Methods Ecol Evol 4:1111–1119. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.12114.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    1. Seekatz AM,
    2. Rao K,
    3. Santhosh K,
    4. Young VB
    . 2016. Dynamics of the fecal microbiome in patients with recurrent and nonrecurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Genome Med 8:47. doi:10.1186/s13073-016-0298-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Khoruts A,
    2. Sadowsky MJ
    . 2016. Understanding the mechanisms of faecal microbiota transplantation. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 13:508–516. doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2016.98.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    1. Weingarden AR,
    2. Dosa PI,
    3. DeWinter E,
    4. Steer CJ,
    5. Shaughnessy MK,
    6. Johnson JR,
    7. Khoruts A,
    8. Sadowsky MJ
    . 2016. Changes in colonic bile acid composition following fecal microbiota transplantation are sufficient to control Clostridium difficile germination and growth. PLoS One 11:e0147210. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147210.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.↵
    1. Buffie CG,
    2. Bucci V,
    3. Stein RR,
    4. McKenney PT,
    5. Ling L,
    6. Gobourne A,
    7. No D,
    8. Liu H,
    9. Kinnebrew M,
    10. Viale A,
    11. Littmann E,
    12. van den Brink MRM,
    13. Jenq RR,
    14. Taur Y,
    15. Sander C,
    16. Cross J,
    17. Toussaint NC,
    18. Xavier JB,
    19. Pamer EG
    . 2015. Precision microbiome reconstitution restores bile acid mediated resistance to Clostridium difficile. Nature 517:205–208. doi:10.1038/nature13828.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    1. Seekatz AM,
    2. Aas J,
    3. Gessert CE,
    4. Rubin TA,
    5. Saman DM,
    6. Bakken JS,
    7. Young VB
    . 2014. Recovery of the gut microbiome following fecal microbiota. mBio 5:e00893-14. doi:10.1128/mBio.00893-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Staley C,
    2. Kelly CR,
    3. Brandt LJ,
    4. Khoruts A,
    5. Sadowsky MJ
    . 2016. Complete microbiota engraftment is not essential for recovery from recurrent Clostridium difficile infection following fecal microbiota transplantation. mBio 7:e01965-16. doi:10.1128/mBio.01965-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Lawley TD,
    2. Clare S,
    3. Walker AW,
    4. Stares MD,
    5. Connor TR,
    6. Raisen C,
    7. Goulding D,
    8. Rad R,
    9. Schreiber F,
    10. Brandt C,
    11. Deakin LJ,
    12. Pickard DJ,
    13. Duncan SH,
    14. Flint HJ,
    15. Clark TG,
    16. Parkhill J,
    17. Dougan G
    . 2012. Targeted restoration of the intestinal microbiota with a simple, defined bacteriotherapy resolves relapsing Clostridium difficile disease in mice. PLoS Pathog 8:e1002995. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1002995.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Donaldson GP,
    2. Lee SM,
    3. Mazmanian SK
    . 2016. Gut biogeography of the bacterial microbiota. Nat Rev Microbiol 14:20–32. doi:10.1038/nrmicro3552.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Faust K,
    2. Sathirapongsasuti JF,
    3. Izard J,
    4. Segata N,
    5. Gevers D,
    6. Raes J,
    7. Huttenhower C
    . 2012. Microbial co-occurrence relationships in the human microbiome. PLoS Comput Biol 8:e1002606. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002606.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Roemhild R,
    2. Gokhale CS,
    3. Dirksen P,
    4. Blake C,
    5. Rosenstiel P,
    6. Traulsen A,
    7. Andersson DI,
    8. Schulenburg H
    . 2018. Cellular hysteresis as a principle to maximize the efficacy of antibiotic therapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115:9767–9772. doi:10.1073/pnas.1810004115.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Tvede M,
    2. Rask-Madsen J
    . 1989. Bacteriotherapy for chronic relapsing Clostridium difficile diarrhoea in six patients. Lancet i:1156–1160. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(89)92749-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. 33.↵
    1. Louie TJ,
    2. Miller MA,
    3. Mullane KM,
    4. Weiss K,
    5. Lentnek A,
    6. Golan Y,
    7. Gorbach S,
    8. Sears P,
    9. Shue Y-K
    . 2011. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med 364:422–431. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0910812.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.↵
    1. Knights D,
    2. Kuczynski J,
    3. Charlson ES,
    4. Zaneveld J,
    5. Mozer MC,
    6. Collman RG,
    7. Bushman FD,
    8. Knight R,
    9. Kelley ST
    . 2011. Bayesian community-wide culture-independent microbial source tracking. Nat Methods 8:761. doi:10.1038/nmeth.1650.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. 35.↵
    1. Staley C,
    2. Kaiser T,
    3. Lobos A,
    4. Ahmed W,
    5. Harwood VJ,
    6. Brown CM,
    7. Sadowsky MJ
    . 2018. Application of SourceTracker for accurate identification of fecal pollution in recreational freshwater: a double-blinded study. Environ Sci Technol 52:4207–4217. doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b05401.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.↵
    1. Forslund K,
    2. Hildebrand F,
    3. Nielsen T,
    4. Falony G,
    5. Le Chatelier E,
    6. Sunagawa S,
    7. Prifti E,
    8. Vieira-Silva S,
    9. Gudmundsdottir V,
    10. Pedersen HK,
    11. Arumugam M,
    12. Kristiansen K,
    13. Voigt AY,
    14. Vestergaard H,
    15. Hercog R,
    16. Costea PI,
    17. Kultima JR,
    18. Li J,
    19. Jørgensen T,
    20. Levenez F,
    21. Dore J, MetaHIT Consortium,
    22. Nielsen HB,
    23. Brunak S,
    24. Raes J,
    25. Hansen T,
    26. Wang J,
    27. Ehrlich SD,
    28. Bork P,
    29. Pedersen O
    . 2015. Disentangling type 2 diabetes and metformin treatment signatures in the human gut microbiota. Nature 528:262–266. doi:10.1038/nature15766.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Wu H,
    2. Esteve E,
    3. Tremaroli V,
    4. Khan MT,
    5. Caesar R,
    6. Mannerås-Holm L,
    7. Ståhlman M,
    8. Olsson LM,
    9. Serino M,
    10. Planas-Fèlix M,
    11. Xifra G,
    12. Mercader JM,
    13. Torrents D,
    14. Burcelin R,
    15. Ricart W,
    16. Perkins R,
    17. Fernàndez-Real JM,
    18. Bäckhed F
    . 2017. Metformin alters the gut microbiome of individuals with treatment-naive type 2 diabetes, contributing to the therapeutic effects of the drug. Nat Med 23:850–858. doi:10.1038/nm.4345.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Zuo T,
    2. Wong SH,
    3. Cheung CP,
    4. Lam K,
    5. Lui R,
    6. Cheung K,
    7. Zhang F,
    8. Tang W,
    9. Ching JYL,
    10. Wu JCY,
    11. Chan PKS,
    12. Sung JJY,
    13. Yu J,
    14. Chan FKL,
    15. Ng SC
    . 2018. Gut fungal dysbiosis correlates with reduced efficacy of fecal microbiota transplantation in Clostridium difficile infection. Nat Commun 9:3663. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06103-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    1. Zuo T,
    2. Wong SH,
    3. Lam K,
    4. Lui R,
    5. Cheung K,
    6. Tang W,
    7. Ching JYL,
    8. Chan PKS,
    9. Chan MCW,
    10. Wu JCY,
    11. Chan FKL,
    12. Yu J,
    13. Sung JJY,
    14. Ng SC
    . 2018. Bacteriophage transfer during faecal microbiota transplantation in Clostridium difficile infection is associated with treatment outcome. Gut 67:634–643. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2017-313952.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Claesson MJ,
    2. Wang QO,
    3. O’Sullivan O,
    4. Greene-Diniz R,
    5. Cole JR,
    6. Ross RP,
    7. O’Toole PW
    . 2010. Comparison of two next-generation sequencing technologies for resolving highly complex microbiota composition using tandem variable 16S rRNA gene regions. Nucleic Acids Res 38:e200. doi:10.1093/nar/gkq873.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Gohl DM,
    2. Vangay P,
    3. Garbe J,
    4. MacLean A,
    5. Hauge A,
    6. Becker A,
    7. Gould TJ,
    8. Clayton JB,
    9. Johnson TJ,
    10. Hunter R,
    11. Knights D,
    12. Beckman KB
    . 2016. Systematic improvement of amplicon marker gene methods for increased accuracy in microbiome studies. Nat Biotechnol 34:942–949. doi:10.1038/nbt.3601.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    1. Schloss PD,
    2. Westcott SL,
    3. Ryabin T,
    4. Hall JR,
    5. Hartmann M,
    6. Hollister EB,
    7. Lesniewski RA,
    8. Oakley BB,
    9. Parks DH,
    10. Robinson CJ,
    11. Sahl JW,
    12. Stres B,
    13. Thallinger GG,
    14. Van Horn DJ,
    15. Weber CF
    . 2009. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:7537–7541. doi:10.1128/AEM.01541-09.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Pruesse E,
    2. Quast C,
    3. Knittel K,
    4. Fuchs BM,
    5. Ludwig WG,
    6. Peplies J,
    7. Glockner FO
    . 2007. SILVA: a comprehensive online resource for quality checked and aligned ribosomal RNA sequence data compatible with ARB. Nucleic Acids Res 35:7188–7196. doi:10.1093/nar/gkm864.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  44. 44.↵
    1. Cole JR,
    2. Wang Q,
    3. Cardenas E,
    4. Fish J,
    5. Chai B,
    6. Farris RJ,
    7. Kulam-Syed-Mohideen AS,
    8. McGarrell DM,
    9. Marsh T,
    10. Garrity GM,
    11. Tiedje JM
    . 2009. The Ribosomal Database Project: improved alignments and new tools for rRNA analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 37:D141–D145. doi:10.1093/nar/gkn879.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  45. 45.↵
    1. Gihring TM,
    2. Green SJ,
    3. Schadt CW
    . 2012. Massively parallel rRNA gene sequencing exacerbates the potential for biased community diversity comparisons due to variable library sizes. Environ Microbiol 14:285–290. doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02550.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  46. 46.↵
    1. Shannon CE,
    2. Weaver W
    . 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
  47. 47.↵
    1. Bray JR,
    2. Curtis JT
    . 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr 27:325–349. doi:10.2307/1942268.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    1. Clarke KR
    . 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Austral Ecol 18:117–143. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.1993.tb00438.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Anderson MJ,
    2. Willis TJ
    . 2003. Canonical analysis of principal coordinates: a useful method of constrained ordination for ecology. Ecology 84:511–525.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Durable Long-Term Bacterial Engraftment following Encapsulated Fecal Microbiota Transplantation To Treat Clostridium difficile Infection
Christopher Staley, Thomas Kaiser, Byron P. Vaughn, Carolyn Graiziger, Matthew J. Hamilton, Amanda J. Kabage, Alexander Khoruts, Michael J. Sadowsky
mBio Jul 2019, 10 (4) e01586-19; DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01586-19

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this mBio article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Durable Long-Term Bacterial Engraftment following Encapsulated Fecal Microbiota Transplantation To Treat Clostridium difficile Infection
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from mBio
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in mBio.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Durable Long-Term Bacterial Engraftment following Encapsulated Fecal Microbiota Transplantation To Treat Clostridium difficile Infection
Christopher Staley, Thomas Kaiser, Byron P. Vaughn, Carolyn Graiziger, Matthew J. Hamilton, Amanda J. Kabage, Alexander Khoruts, Michael J. Sadowsky
mBio Jul 2019, 10 (4) e01586-19; DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01586-19
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Bacteroides
capsule FMT
donor
engraftment
fecal transplant
stable

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About mBio
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • AAM Fellows
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Warranty
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #mBio

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Online ISSN: 2150-7511