Skip to main content
Download PDF

Evaluation of gut microbiota of iranian patients with celiac disease, non-celiac wheat sensitivity, and irritable bowel syndrome: are there any similarities?

BMC Gastroenterology volume 23, Article number: 15 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background and aims

Individuals with celiac disease (CD), non-celiac wheat sensitivity (NCWS), and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), show overlapping clinical symptoms and experience gut dysbiosis. A limited number of studies so far compared the gut microbiota among these intestinal conditions. This study aimed to investigate the similarities in the gut microbiota among patients with CD, NCWS, and IBS in comparison to healthy controls (HC).

Materials and methods

In this prospective study, in total 72 adult subjects, including CD (n = 15), NCWS (n = 12), IBS (n = 30), and HC (n = 15) were recruited. Fecal samples were collected from each individual. A quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) test using 16S ribosomal RNA was conducted on stool samples to assess the relative abundance of Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Bifidobacterium spp., and Lactobacillus spp.

Results

In all groups, Firmicutes and Lactobacillus spp. had the highest and lowest relative abundance respectively. The phylum Firmicutes had a higher relative abundance in CD patients than other groups. On the other hand, the phylum Bacteroidetes had the highest relative abundance among healthy subjects but the lowest in patients with NCWS. The relative abundance of Bifidobacterium spp. was lower in subjects with CD (P = 0.035) and IBS (P = 0.001) compared to the HCs. Also, the alteration of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio (F/B ratio) was statistically significant in NCWS and CD patients compared to the HCs (P = 0.05).

Conclusion

The principal coordinate analysis (PCoA), as a powerful multivariate analysis, suggested that the investigated gut microbial profile of patients with IBS and NCWS share more similarities to the HCs. In contrast, patients with CD had the most dissimilarity compared to the other groups in the context of the studied gut microbiota.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The human gastrointestinal (GI) tract harbors an incredibly complex and abundant ensemble of microbes referred to as gut microbiota [1]. Gut microbiota plays a pivotal role in human health and diseases [2,3,4] and its composition depends on various factors, including age [5], diet [6], geography [7], malnourishment [8], race, ethnicity [9], and socioeconomic status [10]. Balance in the gut microbiota composition and the presence or absence of critical species capable of causing specific responses contribute to ensuring homeostasis in the intestinal mucosa and other organs [11,12,13,14]. An imbalanced or disturbed composition and quantity of the gut microbiota, known as dysbiosis [15], can affect the bacterial function and is associated with a variety of GI disorders [16,17,18,19,20]. Celiac disease (CD), non-celiac wheat sensitivity (NCWS), and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), have intestinal dysbiosis as a causative factor in the initiation of their symptoms [21,22,23,24]. CD is a chronic small intestinal inflammation, triggered by the consumption of gluten, resulting in villous atrophy in genetically susceptible individuals [25]. IBS is a functional gastrointestinal disorder that afflicts nearly 15% of the population worldwide, characterized by recurrent abdominal pain or discomfort, and changes in bowel habits, in the absence of any other disease to cause these symptoms [26, 27]. NCWS is still an unclear diagnosis, characterized by a combination of CD-like or IBS-like symptoms (e.g., diarrhea, abdominal pain, bloating), behavior disturbances, and systemic manifestations, related to the ingestion of gluten in subjects who are not affected by either CD or wheat allergy [28, 29]. Therefore, since these three disorders are related to dysbiosis in gut microbiota and share similarities in their symptoms, these data form a hypothesis regarding the possible similarities in the alterations of the gut microbiota in subjects with the aforementioned disorders. Although the findings are inconsistent, previous studies mainly reported decreased levels of fecal Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria, and increased ratios of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes in patients with IBS when compared to healthy individuals [21, 30,31,32]. According to most studies conducted on the gut microbiota of CD patients, Bifidobacteria and Lactobacilli levels are decreased in comparison to healthy controls [22, 33, 34]. Due to NCWS being a relatively new diagnosis, few studies have examined gut microbiota in this group.

To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have investigated the possible similarities in the gut microbiota profile of patients with CD, NCWS, and IBS compared to healthy control. Hence, we designed this monocentric prospective observational study to compare the relative abundance of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, as the two most dominant phyla [35,36,37,38], and Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus, as two highly controversial genera of fecal microbial communities, among Iranian subjects with CD, NCWS, and IBS compared to HCs.

Materials and methods

Study population

From March 2020 to November 2020, consecutive newly diagnosed CD, NCWS, and IBS patients were recruited from an outpatient gastroenterology clinic in Taleghani Hospital, Tehran, Iran. Convenience sampling was used for participants’ selection. Subjects who had recently been diagnosed with CD, NCWS, and IBS, and were not on therapeutic diets such as gluten-free or low-FODMAP diets or taking supplements such as probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics were considered as patients groups. CD diagnosis was established according to the "4 out of 5" rule and four of the following criteria were considered sufficient for disease diagnosis: typical CD related symptoms, positivity of CD-specific antibodies, HLA-DQ2 or 8 genotypes, intestinal damages at duodenal biopsy and clinical response to GFD [39]. Twelve patients with NCWS that fulfilled the Salerno consensus criteria [40] were included. All NCWS subjects demonstrated negative serology results for tissue-transglutaminase IgA antibodies, and the duodenal biopsy results were normal [41].

IBS diagnosis was based on fulfilling the ROME-IV criteria [27], including recurrent abdominal pain at least one day per week over the previous 3 months, along with two or more of the following criteria: (a) changes in defecation, (b) changes in frequency, and (c) changes in the form of stool, with no medication to alleviate symptoms in the last 3 months. Anti-Tissue Trans-glutaminase (Anti-tTG) and/or endomysial antibodies (EMA), histological findings compatible with atrophy (according to the Marsh classification), and wheat-specific Immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels were negative in all thirty patients with IBS. Apart from these, fifteen healthy volunteers, with no history of digestive pathologies lacking CD-specific antibodies, were enrolled in the healthy control (HC) group. These HCs had normal bowel movements without abdominal symptoms, coronary artery disease, inflammatory conditions, IBS, NCWS, and diabetes mellitus.

Pregnant and lactating women, individuals with any systemic inflammatory diseases like autoimmune conditions, gastrointestinal diseases (i.e. inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)) or any other acute or chronic diseases, gastrointestinal surgery, cancer, and those who were not willing to participate in the study were excluded from all study groups. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) usage, excessive alcohol consumption, systemic use of immunosuppressive agents, poorly controlled psychiatric diseases and the history of broad-spectrum antibiotics and probiotics consumption were also considered as exclusion criteria. Participants were also asked not to take any antibiotics, eat spicy food, and smoke four weeks prior to sample collection.

Fecal samples collection and homogenization

Fresh early-morning fecal samples, representative of whole gut microbiome, were collected from each participant in sterile fecal specimen containers at the study's baseline. A water ban was also required after midnight and before collecting the samples in the morning. Stool specimens were collected and handled by experienced clinicians and trained technicians. Homogenization of the stool samples was conducted through agitation by using a vortex. Afterward, stool samples were divided into three aliquots within 3 h of defecation. Using screw-capped cryovial containers, the aliquots were immediately frozen and stored at − 80 °C until used for DNA extraction [42].

DNA extraction from fecal samples

QIAamp® DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen Retsch GmbH, Hannover, Germany) was used for DNA extraction [43]. DNA concentration was quantified by NanoDrop ND-2000 Spectrophotometer (NanoDrop products, Wilmington, DE, USA). In addition, Nanodrop (DeNovix Inc., USA) was used for assessing the concentration and purity of the extracted DNA. Extracted DNA samples were stored at − 20 °C until further analysis.

Microbiota analysis by quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR)

We performed qPCR assay to evaluate the relative abundance of two bacterial phyla, including Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, and two genera, including Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp. The qPCR was conducted by SYBR Green chemistry using universal and group-specific primers based on the bacterial 16S rRNA sequences presented in Additional file 1: Table S1. All PCRs were performed in a volume of 25 μL, comprising 12.5 μL of SYBR green PCR master mix (Ampliqon, Odense, Denmark), 1 μL of 10 pmol of forward, and reverse primers, and 100 ng of the DNA template.

Rotor-Gene® Q (Qiagen, Germany) real-time PCR system was used for the PCR amplification. The amplification reaction parameters were assumed as 95 °C for 10 min and 40 cycles at 95 °C for 20 and 30 s for each primer (Additional file 1: Table S1) and 72 °C for the 20 s. Melting curve analysis was conducted to assess the amplification accuracy by increasing temperature from 60 to 95 °C (0.5 °C increase in every 5 s). The relative abundance of studied taxa was evaluated based on the ratio of the 16S rRNA copy number of the specific bacteria to the total 16S rRNA copy number of all bacteria using the previously described method [32]. Accordingly, the average Ct value for primers was reported as the percentage values using the following formula:

$$X = \frac{{\left( {{\text{Eff}}.{\text{ Univ}}} \right)^{{\text{Ct univ}}} }}{{\left( {{\text{Eff}}.{\text{ Spec}}} \right)^{{\text{Ct spec}}} }} \times {1}00$$

The percentage of 16S taxon-specific copy numbers was indicated by “X”. Furthermore, “Eff. Univ” and “Eff. Spec” represents the efficiency of the universal primers (2 = 100% and 1 = 0%) and the efficiency of the taxon-specific primers respectively. The threshold cycles registered by the thermocycler were indicated by “Ct univ” and “Ct spec”.

Statistical analysis

Analysis of collected data was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA. Figures were drawn using GRAPHPAD Prism 8.4.0 (GraphPad Software, Inc, San Diego, CA). Quantitative variables were reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and qualitative variables were reported as numerical (%) data. ANOVA test was used for the assessment of the relative abundance differences between the two phyla. In addition, we used R software and Principal Coordinate Analysis (PCoA) method to assess dissimilarities in this study. The PCoA was calculated based on the Bray Curtis dissimilarity method [44].

Results

Demographics

Seventy-two samples from adult participants were enrolled in this study. Due to age-related changes in the gut microbiota, the study groups were adjusted according to their age so as not to have significant differences between them (P = 0.76). Thirty-three patients were male (45.8%), and the mean age of the patients was 35.5 ± 6.4. Fifteen patients (20.8%) were in the HC group, 30 (41.7%) in the IBS group, 12 (16.6%) in the NCWS group, and 15 (20.8%) in the CD group. The baseline characteristics of the patients are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of study participants at enrollment
Full size table

Microbiota relative abundance analysis

Significant changes in the gut microbiota composition across various groups have been observed. The relative abundance analysis indicated that Firmicutes was the most abundant bacterial group and the predominant phylum in all the studied groups (HC: 29.5 ± 13.9%, IBS: 31.2 ± 13.6%, NCWS: 28.6 ± 11.4%, and CD: 46.2 ± 14.0%). At the same time, Bifidobacterium spp. was the dominant genus among the studied participants, with the highest relative abundance in patients with HCs (4.4 ± 3.3%). According to our findings, patients with CD had a higher relative abundance of the phylum Firmicutes than the other groups, including the HC group, for which this difference was statistically significant (p = 0.002). Whereas the phylum Bacteroidetes was significantly lower in patients with IBS (P = 0.049) and NCWS (P = 0.006). This phylum had the lowest relative abundance in the NCWS group (7.3 ± 4.0%). In addition, the relative abundance of Bifidobacterium spp. was statistically lower in subjects with CD (P = 0.022) and IBS (P = 0.001); with the lowest percentage in the IBS group (0.5 ± 0.5). Moreover, Lactobacillus spp. was significantly lower in subjects with CD (P = 0.022) and IBS (P = 0.007) compared to the HCs. The relative abundance of this genus was also lower in subjects with NCWS, though not statistically significant (P = 0.12). The results for the relative abundance are presented in Table 2 and Fig. 1. As shown in Table 2 the results obtained from the Kruskal–Wallis test also revealed significant inter-groups differences for all the studied bacteria (p˂0.05).

Table 2 The mean of the relative abundance for taxonomical groups in each group of the study participants
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Box plot for the distribution of the selected bacterial taxa by the median abundance that constitutes the fecal microbiota in each group of the study population. Differences in each group of the patients were compared to the healthy control (HC) and were considered to be statistically significant when *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001

Full size image

Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio

The ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes (F/B ratio) was significantly higher in patients with NCWS and CD than the HC individuals (P = 0.05). However, F/B ratio was not statistically different between subjects with IBS and the HCs. The results of the F/B ratio analysis are illustrated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Box plots showing the Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes (F/B) I each group of participants. This ratio was significantly (*P = 0.05) increased in the NCWS and CD patients but non-significant in the IBS patients compared with the healthy controls (HC)

Full size image

Dissimilarity and principal coordinate analysis (PCoA)

We measured the extent of fit of the ordination by plotting the observed dissimilarity (as calculated by the dissimilarity matrix) to the ordination distance using a shepherd plot, which yielded an R2 = 0.996, indicating a good fit between the ordination distance and the observed dissimilarity, as calculated by Bray–Curtis index (Fig. 3). The dissimilarity between the microbiome of different groups is shown in Fig. 4. The PCoA suggests that IBS and NCWS patients share more gut microbiota similarities with HCs. In contrast, CD patients had the highest level of dissimilarity compared to the other groups.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Shepherd plot showing the correlation between the distance from the dissimilarity matrix and the coordination distance for NMDS analysis

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Bray–Curtis dissimilarity metric plotted in PCoA space comparing the microbial communities from different patient groups (CD, NCWS, IBS, and HC). Each circle representing a participant colored according to the studied group

Full size image

Discussion

The current study examined fecal samples from adult participants with three GI disorders, including CD, NCWS, and IBS. Comparing gut dysbiosis to healthy controls, the microbiota analysis interestingly showed a significant difference in the relative abundance of Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Bifidobacterium spp., and Lactobacillus spp. in CD patients. In addition, the analysis of the relative abundance of Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp. in IBS patients and Bacteroidetes in NCWS revealed a statistically significant decrease compared to the HC group. Furthermore, Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio (F/B ratio) assessment, as a valuable index for detecting the alterations in gut microbiota, was another aim of the current study. Changes in the F/B ratio could be particularly important. Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes are two predominant phyla accounting for up to 90% of the total gut microbiota composition [45]. The F/B ratio has been suggested as an important index of gut microbiota health. [46]. This ratio is associated with different pathological states [47]. For instance, the association of a high F/B ratio with several conditions including GI disorders has been observed repeatedly [48,49,50]. Particularly, it is associated with the production of short-chain fatty acids such as butyrate and propionate [51]. Short-chain fatty acids generated by microbiota can have a significant influence on human health. The anti-inflammatory molecule butyrate, in particular, acts both on enterocytes and circulating immune cells, regulating gut barrier integrity. Additionally, propionate production plays a crucial role in human health since it promotes satiety and prevents hepatic lipogenesis, which in turn lowers cholesterol production [52, 53]. Moreover, the increased F/B ratio is associated with an increased energy harvest from colonic fermentation [54]. According to our analysis, the F/B ratio was significantly higher in the subjects with CD and NCWS than in the HCs. In contrast, it was not statistically significant in subjects with IBS, suggesting a higher level of alteration in the gut microbiota of individuals with CD and NCWS than in the IBS compared to the HCs. Recent studies suggested that the alteration of gut microbiota composition is associated with CD pathogenesis [55,56,57]. In the study of Golfetto et al., the concentration of Bifidobacterium spp. in CD patients was significantly lower compared to the HCs [58]. Another study conducted by Bodkhe et al., reported that Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes were the major phyla in the duodenal microbiota of subjects with CD [59]. Several other studies have demonstrated that Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp. protect the intestinal epithelial cells from gliadin damage [60,61,62]. Accordingly, it has been suggested that the fecal transplant which can cause an increment in Bifidobacterium spp. could reverse the inflammatory pathway in CD patients [63]. Among all the groups we studied, Firmicutes predominated the gut microbiota. In addition, Bacteroidetes, Bifidobacterium spp., and Lactobacillus spp. had significantly lower abundance in subjects with CD compared to the HCs. In terms of the alteration and relative abundance of the studied bacterial groups, the current study's results were largely consistent with the previous reports.

Gut microbiota dysbiosis in individuals with IBS has been reported in several studies [64,65,66]. In fact, gastrointestinal dysbiosis in these patients is associated with intestinal hypersensitivity, mucosal immune activation, and chronic inflammation, which are the three important pathophysiological factors in this disease [67, 68]. A number of studies have reported lower amounts of Bacteroidetes and higher amounts of Firmicutes in subjects with IBS compared to HCs [32, 69, 70]. In the current study, both of these phyla had lower relative abundances than those of HCs, although their differences were not statistically significant. Furthermore, it has been suggested that IBS is associated with the lower relative abundance of Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp. [71, 72] which is in accordance with the current study. However, it is noteworthy that Maccaferri et al. observed an increase in the relative abundance of Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus among subjects with IBS [73]. It seems that further evidence is needed to confirm these results. As for NCWS, dysbiosis in these individuals is one of the important issues which can cause constipation, diarrhea, chronic inflammation, intestinal hypersensitivity, and immune dysfunction [74]. Garcia-Mazcorro et al. reported a high relative abundance of Firmicutes and a low relative abundance of Bacteroidetes in the fecal microbiota of the individuals with NCWS [75]. According to the current study, the Phylum Bacteroidetes was significantly lower in NCWS patients compared to HCs, in agreement with the previous study.

Analysis of the dissimilarity and PCoA in this study suggests that individuals with CD experience a higher level of dysbiosis compared to the other subjects with microbiota-related GI disorders. In fact, fewer similarities were observed in the studied bacterial profile of subjects with IBS and those with NCWS. Overall, it may explain why this disorder exhibits more severe symptoms when compared to the other GI disorders, suggesting that the recovery of gut microbiota should be emphasized more in the treatment of this disease. According to these analyses, the composition of the gut microbiota in the subjects with IBS and NCWS is more similar to that of the HCs’, which may suggest a more favorable outcome for IBS and NCWS than for CD.

The present study had some limitations. First, the sample size is not large enough to extrapolate the results. Actually, the present study has monocentric nature that was conducted in a limited population with specific features. Even if this matter has been addressed with bigger sample sizes, the results cannot be generalized from one population to others. Second, based on the meta-genomic data, the human gut microbiome may contain more than 1000 bacterial species. Although the studied bacterial phyla and genera are the most dominant and critical taxonomical groups, there are other groups that should be taken into consideration. Third, alimentary habits of the included subjects, which can consistently modify gut microbiota, were not assessed in the current study. Considering the fact that, eating habits such as using fiber sub-types, food additives, ultra-processed foods and etc. can affect the gut bacteria composition, performing further similar microbiota studies evaluating patients’ dietary pattern is highly recommended. Moreover, the lack of a follow-up of patients and comparison of results before and after receiving treatment is another important limitation.

To our knowledge, no previous publication has compared the gut microbiota profile of subjects with CD, NCWS, and IBS. In fact, the potential overlap between NCWS and IBS diagnosis and the unavailability of gluten challenge tests in many medical centers make it difficult to explore the gut microbiota among these groups. Thus, this study represents promising findings for future research. Additionally, investigating all components of the gut microbiota including bacteria, viruses, fungi, and archaea in order to identify microbial patterns, conducting multi-centric studies, and examining the fecal microbiome and mucosal microbiome simultaneously to have a better perspective on the differences between the mucosal microbiome and fecal microbiome would have been of great importance.

Conclusion

Results of our study indicate that the human intestinal microbiota composition differs across the studied groups with different microbiota-related GI disorders. Specifically, patients with CD had the highest level of dissimilarity compared to the other studied groups with GI disorders and HCs. In contrast, those with IBS had the lowest level of dissimilarity with HCs. This study found some microbial changes that were inconsistent with the previous results, possibly due to genetics, geographical pattern, ethnicity, or diet.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Hooper LV, Wong MH, Thelin A, et al. Molecular analysis of commensal host-microbial relationships in the intestine. Science. 2001;291(5505):881–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Altveş S, Yildiz HK, Vural HC. Interaction of the microbiota with the human body in health and diseases. Biosci Microbiota Food Health. 2019;39:19–023.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Clemente JC, Ursell LK, Parfrey LW, et al. The impact of the gut microbiota on human health: an integrative view. Cell. 2012;148(6):1258–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ogunrinola GA, Oyewale JO, Oshamika OO, et al. The human microbiome and its impacts on health. Int J Microbiol. 2020;2020.

  5. Teng F, Felix KM, Bradley CP, et al. The impact of age and gut microbiota on Th17 and Tfh cells in K/BxN autoimmune arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2017;19(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. David LA, Maurice CF, Carmody RN, et al. Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome. Nature. 2014;505(7484):559–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Prideaux L, Kang S, Wagner J, et al. Impact of ethnicity, geography, and disease on the microbiota in health and inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013;19(13):2906–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Million M, Diallo A, Raoult D. Gut microbiota and malnutrition. Microb Pathog. 2017;106:127–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Renson A, Herd P, Dowd JB. Sick individuals and sick (microbial) populations: challenges in epidemiology and the microbiome. Annu Rev Public Health. 2020;2(41):63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chong CW, Ahmad AF, Lim YAL, et al. Effect of ethnicity and socioeconomic variation to the gut microbiota composition among pre-adolescent in Malaysia. Sci Rep. 2015;5(1):1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lin L, Zhang J. Role of intestinal microbiota and metabolites on gut homeostasis and human diseases. BMC Immunol. 2017;18(1):1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Takiishi T, Fenero CIM, Câmara NOS. Intestinal barrier and gut microbiota: shaping our immune responses throughout life. Tissue barriers. 2017;5(4): e1373208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Thursby E, Juge N. Introduction to the human gut microbiota. Biochem J. 2017;474(11):1823–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Wu H-J, Wu E. The role of gut microbiota in immune homeostasis and autoimmunity. Gut Microb. 2012;3(1):4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Belizário JE, Faintuch J. Microbiome and gut dysbiosis. Metabolic interaction in infection. Springer; 2018. p. 459–76.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Chang C, Lin H. Dysbiosis in gastrointestinal disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;30(1):3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fukui H, Xu X, Miwa H. Role of gut microbiota-gut hormone axis in the pathophysiology of functional gastrointestinal disorders. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018;24(3):367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lopetuso LR, Petito V, Graziani C, et al. Gut microbiota in health, diverticular disease, irritable bowel syndrome, and inflammatory bowel diseases: time for microbial marker of gastrointestinal disorders. Dig Dis. 2018;36(1):56–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Malikowski T, Khanna S, Pardi DS. Fecal microbiota transplantation for gastrointestinal disorders. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2017;33(1):8–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ostadmohammadi S, Azimirad M, Houri H, et al. Characterization of the gut microbiota in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis compared to inflammatory bowel disease and healthy controls. Mol Biol Rep. 2021;48(7):5519–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bhattarai Y, Muniz Pedrogo DA, Kashyap PC. Irritable bowel syndrome: a gut microbiota-related disorder? Am J Physiol Gastrointestinal Liver Physiol. 2017;312(1):52–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Marasco G, Di Biase AR, Schiumerini R, et al. Gut microbiota and celiac disease. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61(6):1461–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Igbinedion SO, Ansari J, Vasikaran A, et al. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: all wheat attack is not celiac. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23(40):7201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Leccioli V, Oliveri M, Romeo M, et al. A new proposal for the pathogenic mechanism of non-coeliac/non-allergic gluten/wheat sensitivity: piecing together the puzzle of recent scientific evidence. Nutrients. 2017;9(11):1203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Shannahan S, Leffler DA. Diagnosis and updates in celiac disease. Gastrointestinal Endosc Clin. 2017;27(1):79–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Buono JL, Carson RT, Flores NM. Health-related quality of life, work productivity, and indirect costs among patients with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lacy BE, Patel NK. Rome criteria and a diagnostic approach to irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Med. 2017;6(11):99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Barbaro MR, Cremon C, Stanghellini V, et al. Recent advances in understanding non-celiac gluten sensitivity. F1000Research. 2018;7.

  29. Catassi C, Bai JC, Bonaz B, et al. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: the new frontier of gluten related disorders. Nutrients. 2013;5(10):3839–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hills RD Jr, Pontefract BA, Mishcon HR, et al. Gut Microbiome: profound implications for diet and disease. Nutrients. 2019;11(7):1613.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Salem AE, Singh R, Ayoub YK, et al. The gut microbiome and irritable bowel syndrome: state of art review. Arab J Gastroenterol. 2018;19(3):136–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Naseri K, Dabiri H, Rostami-Nejad M, et al. Influence of low FODMAP-gluten free diet on gut microbiota alterations and symptom severity in Iranian patients with irritable bowel syndrome. BMC Gastroenterol. 2021;21(1):1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Chander AM, Yadav H, Jain S, et al. Cross-talk between gluten, intestinal microbiota and intestinal mucosa in celiac disease: recent advances and basis of autoimmunity. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Losurdo G, Principi M, Iannone A, et al. The interaction between celiac disease and intestinal microbiota. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;50:S145–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Khanna S, Tosh PK. A clinician’s primer on the role of the microbiome in human health and disease. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89(1):107–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Johnson EL, Heaver SL, Walters WA, et al. Microbiome and metabolic disease: revisiting the bacterial phylum Bacteroidetes. J Mol Med. 2017;95(1):1–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Kumar H, Lund R, Laiho A, et al. Gut microbiota as an epigenetic regulator: pilot study based on whole-genome methylation analysis. MBio. 2014;5(6):e02113-e2114.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Mahowald MA, Rey FE, Seedorf H, et al. Characterizing a model human gut microbiota composed of members of its two dominant bacterial phyla. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009;106(14):5859–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Raiteri A, Granito A, Giamperoli A, et al. Current guidelines for the management of celiac disease: a systematic review with comparative analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2022;28(1):154–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Catassi C, Elli L, Bonaz B, et al. Diagnosis of non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS): the Salerno experts’ criteria. Nutrients. 2015;7(6):4966–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Taraghikhah N, Ashtari S, Asri N, et al. An updated overview of spectrum of gluten-related disorders: clinical and diagnostic aspects. BMC Gastroenterol. 2020;20(1):258.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Soheilian-Khorzoghi M, Rezasoltani S, Moheb-Alian A, Yadegar A, Rostami-Nejad M, Azizmohammad-Looha M, Verma AK, Haddadi A, Dabiri H. Impact of nutritional profile on gut microbiota diversity in patients with celiac disease. Curr Microbiol. 2022;79(5):129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-022-02820-w.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Mirsepasi H, Persson S, Struve C, et al. Microbial diversity in fecal samples depends on DNA extraction method: easyMag DNA extraction compared to QIAamp DNA stool mini kit extraction. BMC Res Notes. 2014;21(7):50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bray JR, Curtis JT. An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr. 1957;27(4):326–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Consortium HMP. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature. 2012;486(7402):207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Li W, Ma ZS. FBA ecological guild: trio of firmicutes-bacteroidetes alliance against actinobacteria in human oral microbiome. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Liang D, Leung RKK, Guan W, et al. Involvement of gut microbiome in human health and disease: brief overview, knowledge gaps and research opportunities. Gut Pathogens. 2018;10(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Rowin J, Xia Y, Jung B, et al. Gut inflammation and dysbiosis in human motor neuron disease. Physiol Rep. 2017;5(18): e13443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Stojanov S, Berlec A, Štrukelj B. The influence of probiotics on the firmicutes/bacteroidetes ratio in the treatment of obesity and inflammatory bowel disease. Microorganisms. 2020;8(11):1715.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Woting A, Blaut M. The intestinal microbiota in metabolic disease. Nutrients. 2016;8(4):202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Fernandes J, Su W, Rahat-Rozenbloom S, et al. Adiposity, gut microbiota and faecal short chain fatty acids are linked in adult humans. Nutr Diabetes. 2014;4(6):e121–e121.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Bifari F, Ruocco C, Decimo I, et al. Amino acid supplements and metabolic health: a potential interplay between intestinal microbiota and systems control. Genes Nutr. 2017;12(1):1–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Chambers ES, Preston T, Frost G, et al. Role of gut microbiota-generated short-chain fatty acids in metabolic and cardiovascular health. Curr Nutr Rep. 2018;7(4):198–206.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Mahowald MA, et al. An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature. 2006;444(7122):1027–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Akobeng AK, Singh P, Kumar M, et al. Role of the gut microbiota in the pathogenesis of coeliac disease and potential therapeutic implications. Eur J Nutr. 2020;59:1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Caio G, Lungaro L, Segata N, et al. Effect of gluten-free diet on gut microbiota composition in patients with celiac disease and non-celiac gluten/wheat sensitivity. Nutrients. 2020;12(6):1832.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Schiepatti A, Bacchi S, Biagi F, et al. Relationship between duodenal microbiota composition, clinical features at diagnosis, and persistent symptoms in adult Coeliac disease. Dig Liver Dis. 2021;53:972–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Golfetto L, de Senna FD, Hermes J, et al. Lower bifidobacteria counts in adult patients with celiac disease on a gluten-free diet. Arq Gastroenterol. 2014;51(2):139–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Bodkhe R, Shetty SA, Dhotre DP, et al. Comparison of small gut and whole gut microbiota of first-degree relatives with adult celiac disease patients and controls. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:164–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. de Sousa Moraes LF, Grzeskowiak LM, de Sales Teixeira TF, et al. Intestinal microbiota and probiotics in celiac disease. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2014;27(3):482–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ghodsi A, Sarabi M, Ranjbar G, et al. The gut microbiota and probiotics in celiac disease. J Nutr Fast Health. 2021;9(2):105–12.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Norouzbeigi S, Vahid-Dastjerdi L, Yekta R, et al. Celiac therapy by administration of probiotics in food products: a review. Curr Opin Food Sci. 2020;32:58–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Medina M, De Palma G, Ribes-Koninckx C, et al. Bifidobacterium strains suppress in vitro the pro-inflammatory milieu triggered by the large intestinal microbiota of coeliac patients. J Inflamm. 2008;5(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Javanmard A, Ashtari S, Sabet B, et al. Probiotics and their role in gastrointestinal cancers prevention and treatment; an overview. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench. 2018;11(4):284.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Chey WD, Kurlander J, Eswaran S. Irritable bowel syndrome: a clinical review. JAMA. 2015;313(9):949–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Wang Z, Xu C-M, Liu Y-X, et al. Characteristic dysbiosis of gut microbiota of Chinese patients with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome by an insight into the pan-microbiome. Chin Med J. 2019;132(8):889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Wang L, Alammar N, Singh R, et al. Gut microbial dysbiosis in the irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2020;120(4):565–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Chong PP, Chin VK, Looi CY, et al. The microbiome and irritable bowel syndrome—a review on the pathophysiology, current research and future therapy. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Labus JS, Hollister EB, Jacobs J, et al. Differences in gut microbial composition correlate with regional brain volumes in irritable bowel syndrome. Microbiome. 2017;5(1):49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Duan R, Zhu S, Wang B, et al. Alterations of gut microbiota in patients with irritable bowel syndrome based on 16S rRNA-targeted sequencing: a systematic review. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2019;10:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Lee BJ, Bak Y-T. Irritable bowel syndrome, gut microbiota and probiotics. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2011;17(3):252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Bellini M, Gambaccini D, Stasi C, et al. Irritable bowel syndrome: a disease still searching for pathogenesis, diagnosis and therapy. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(27):8807.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Maccaferri S, Candela M, Turroni S, et al. IBS-associated phylogenetic unbalances of the intestinal microbiota are not reverted by probiotic supplementation. Gut Microb. 2012;3(5):406–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Daulatzai MA. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity triggers gut dysbiosis, neuroinflammation, gut-brain axis dysfunction, and vulnerability for dementia. CNS Neurol Disord Drug Targets. 2015;14(1):110–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Garcia-Mazcorro JF, Rivera-Gutierrez X, Cobos-Quevedo OJ, et al. First insights into the gut microbiota of Mexican patients with celiac disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity. Nutrients. 2018;10(11):1641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the laboratory staffs of the Foodborne and Waterborne Diseases Research Center, Research Institute for Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, specially Ms. Masoumeh Azimirad and Ms. Nastaran Asri for their sincere assistance.

Funding

Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases Research Center, Research Institute for Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, supported the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Kaveh Naseri

  2. Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Hossein Dabiri

  3. Gastroenterology and Hepatology Diseases Research Center, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran

    Meysam Olfatifar

  4. Celiac Disease Department, Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases Research Center, Research Institute for Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Mohammad Amin Shahrbaf, Mona Soheilian-Khorzoghi, Amir Sadeghi, Saeede Saadati, Mohammad Rostami-Nejad & Mohammad Reza Zali

  5. Foodborne and Waterborne Diseases Research Center, Research Institute for Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Abbas Yadegar

  6. Celiac Disease Research Laboratory, Department of Pediatrics, Università Politecnica Delle Marche, 60123, Ancona, Italy

    Anil K. Verma

Authors
  1. Kaveh Naseri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hossein Dabiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meysam Olfatifar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohammad Amin Shahrbaf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Abbas Yadegar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mona Soheilian-Khorzoghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Amir Sadeghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Saeede Saadati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mohammad Rostami-Nejad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Anil K. Verma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Mohammad Reza Zali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KN, SS, and MSK collected the samples and KN performed the real-time PCR analysis; MRN and HD designed and supervised the study; KN and MO participated in data analysis; KN, and MAS wrote the manuscript; MRN, AY, AS, HD, AKV, and MRZ critically revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Rostami-Nejad.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was submitted for evaluation and approval to the Ethical Review Committee of the Research Institute for Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences to ensure that it meets ethical standards and guidelines. The present study was approved by mentioned Ethical Review Committee under the number IR.SBMU.RIGLD.REC.1396.154. The study was performed according to the revised Declaration of Helsinki 2013 [39] and informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardians prior to sample collection.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1.

 The taxon-specific primers used in this study.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Naseri, K., Dabiri, H., Olfatifar, M. et al. Evaluation of gut microbiota of iranian patients with celiac disease, non-celiac wheat sensitivity, and irritable bowel syndrome: are there any similarities?. BMC Gastroenterol 23, 15 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-023-02649-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-023-02649-y

Keywords

  • Celiac disease
  • Irritable bowel syndrome
  • Non-celiac wheat sensitivity
  • Gut microbiota
  • Dysbiosis

BMC Gastroenterology

ISSN: 1471-230X

Contact us