Cited by 30Cancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersGut microbiota and healthT-cell and B-cell Immunology

Murine fecal microbiota transfer models selectively colonize human microbes and reveal transcriptional programs associated with response to neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitors

Open access
Shaikh, Fyza Y., Gills, Joell J., Mohammad, Fuad, White, James R., Stevens, Courtney M., Ding, Hua, Fu, Juan, Tam, Ada +12 more·2022·Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy

Abstract

Human gut microbial species found to associate with clinical responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are often tested in mice using fecal microbiota transfer (FMT), wherein tumor responses in recipient mice may recapitulate human responses to ICI treatment. However, many FMT studies have reported only limited methodological description, details of murine cohorts, and statistical methods. To investigate the reproducibility and robustness of gut microbial species that impact ICI responses, we performed human to germ-free mouse FMT using fecal samples from patients with non-small cell lung cancer who had a pathological response or nonresponse after neoadjuvant ICI treatment. R-FMT mice yielded greater anti-tumor responses in combination with anti-PD-L1 treatment compared to NR-FMT, although the magnitude varied depending on mouse cell line, sex, and individual experiment. Detailed investigation of post-FMT mouse microbiota using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, with models to classify and correct for biological variables, revealed a shared presence of the most highly abundant taxa between the human inocula and mice, though low abundance human taxa colonized mice more variably after FMT. Multiple Clostridium species also correlated with tumor outcome in individual anti-PD-L1-treated R-FMT mice. RNAseq analysis revealed differential expression of T and NK cell-related pathways in responding tumors, irrespective of FMT source, with enrichment of these cell types confirmed by immunohistochemistry. This study identifies several human gut microbial species that may play a role in clinical responses to ICIs and suggests attention to biological variables is needed to improve reproducibility and limit variability across experimental murine cohorts.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00262-022-03169-6

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Mouse models provide evidence that gut microbiota modifications from FMT improve ICI response, but magnitude depends on mouse strain or provider, sex, and experimental conditions.

    “Studies in mouse models have provided compelling evidence that gut microbiota modifications resulting from faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) improve ICI response rates38,42,91; however, the magnitude of these antitumour responses depends of factors such as the mouse strain or provider, mouse sex and individual experimental conditions106.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shaikh, F. Y., Gills, J. J., Mohammad, F., White, J. R., Stevens, C. M., Ding, H., Fu, J., Tam, A., Blosser, R. L., Domingue, J. C., Larman, T. C., Chaft, J. E., Spicer, J. D., Reuss, J. E., Naidoo, J., Forde, P. M., Ganguly, S., Housseau, F., Pardoll, D. M., & Sears, C. L.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Resphera Biosciences (US)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (IE)
Corresponding author
Sears, Cynthia L.
Venue
Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy
Published
2022-02-26
Volume
71
Issue
10
Pages
2405-2420
ISSN
  • 0340-7004 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0851
OpenAlex
W4214496408
Cited by
30
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer Immunology Immunotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Bloomberg~Kimmel Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • National Institutes of Health (T32CA009071, P30 CA006973)
  • International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer
  • Lung Cancer Foundation of America
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (KL2TR001077)
  • Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison
  • LUNGevity Foundation
  • ECOG-ACRIN
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › T-cell and B-cell Immunology
Keywords
fecal microbiota transplantation, immune checkpoint inhibitors, neoadjuvant therapy, non-small cell lung cancer, PD-L1 blockade, Clostridium, gut microbiota, antitumor immunity, T cells, natural killer cells, germ-free mice, 16S rRNA gene sequencing, RNA sequencing
MeSH terms
Fecal Microbiota Transplantation, Animals, Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Reproducibility of Results, Neoadjuvant Therapy, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review