The essential role of the intestinal microbiota in facilitating acute inflammatory responses
Open accessAbstract
The restoration of blood flow, i.e., reperfusion, is the treatment of choice to save viable tissue following acute ischemia of a vascular territory. Nevertheless, reperfusion can be accompanied by significant inflammatory events that limit the beneficial effects of blood flow restoration. To evaluate the potential role of the intestinal microbiota in facilitating the development of tissue injury and systemic inflammation, germ-free and conventional mice were compared in their ability to respond to ischemia and reperfusion injury. In conventional mice, there was marked local (intestine) and remote (lung) edema formation, neutrophil influx, hemorrhage, and production of TNF-alpha, KC, MIP-2, and MCP-1. Moreover, there was an increase in the concentration of serum TNF-alpha and 100% lethality. In germ-free mice, there was no local, remote, or systemic inflammatory response or lethality after intestinal ischemia and reperfusion and, in contrast to conventional mice, germ-free animals produced greater amounts of IL-10. Similar results were obtained after administration of LPS, i.e., little production of TNF-alpha or lethality and production of IL-10 after LPS in germ-free mice. Blockade of IL-10 with Abs induced marked inflammation and lethality in germ-free mice after ischemia and reperfusion or LPS administration, demonstrating that the ability of these mice to produce IL-10 was largely responsible for their "no inflammation" phenotype. This was consistent with the prevention of reperfusion-associated injury by the exogenous administration of IL-10 to conventional mice. Thus, the lack of intestinal microbiota is accompanied by a state of active IL-10-mediated inflammatory hyporesponsiveness.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
During severe systemic illness such as sepsis or haemorrhagic shock, the bacterial content of the gut determines the severity of systemic injury.
“During severe systemic illness, such as sepsis or haemorrhagic shock, the bacterial content of the gut determines the severity of systemic injury”
From The microbiome and critical illness (2016) · cites this paper as [90]
When the bacterial burden of the gut is minimised, either by pretreatment with enteric antibiotics or by use of germ-free animals, the inflammation and injury sustained by distal organs in shock is lessened.
“When the bacterial burden of the gut is minimised, either by pretreatment with enteric antibiotics or by use of germ-free animals, the inflammation and injury sustained by distal organs in shock is lessened.”
From The microbiome and critical illness (2016) · cites this paper as [90]
The relation between gut bacterial burden and systemic injury in shock has been reported consistently across species, types of shock, and decades of rigorous inquiry.
“This relation has been reported consistently across species (mice,90,93 rats,94 rabbits,89 and dogs87), types of shock (haemorrhage,87 sepsis,89 and ischaemia–reperfusion90), and decades of rigorous inquiry.”
From The microbiome and critical illness (2016) · cites this paper as [90]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 247
- Authors
- Souza, D. G., Vieira, A. T., Soares, A. C., Pinho, V., Nicoli, J. R., Vieira, L. Q., & Teixeira, M. M.
- Affiliations
- Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (BR)
- Departament of Bioquímica e Imunologia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) , Pampulha, Belo Horizonte ,
- Corresponding author
- Pinho, Vanessa
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Journal of Immunology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-09
- Volume
- 173
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 4137-4146
- ISSN
- 0022-1767 (ISSN-L)
- 1550-6606
- OpenAlex
- W1951711480
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 2.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Journal of Immunology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
- Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais
- Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immune Response and Inflammation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Abdominal vascular conditions and treatments
- Keywords
- gut microbiota, intestinal ischemia-reperfusion injury, systemic inflammation, germ-free mice, IL-10, TNF-α, lipopolysaccharide, neutrophil infiltration, pulmonary edema, tissue damage
- MeSH terms
- Acute Disease, Animals, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Germ-Free Life, Immune Sera, Immune Tolerance, Inflammation, Injections, Intraperitoneal, Intestinal Mucosa, Lipopolysaccharides, Time Factors, Reperfusion Injury, Interleukin-10, Macrophages, Peritoneal, Bacterial Translocation, 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