New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Gut Microbes Can Shape Responses to Cancer Immunotherapy

Studies find that species diversity and antibiotics influence cutting-edge treatments

Clostridium difficile bacteria.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Cancer immunotherapies unleash the body’s immune system to fight cancer, but microbes living in a patient’s gut can affect the outcome of those treatments, two research teams have found.

Their studies, published on November 2 in Science, are the latest in a wave of results linking two of the hottest fields in biomedical research: cancer immunotherapy and the role of the body's resident microbes, referred to collectively as the microbiome, in disease.

They also highlight the impact of antibiotics on cancer immunotherapies, particularly drugs that block either of two related proteins called PD-1 and PD-L1. One of the studies found that people treated with antibiotics for unrelated infections had a reduced response to these immunotherapies.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“It raises important questions,” says cancer researcher Jennifer Wargo of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and an author of one of the studies. “Should we be limiting or tightly monitoring antibiotic use in these patients? And can we actually change the microbiome to enhance responses to therapy?”

The composition and diversity of the microbiome has been linked to everything from mental-health disorders to some side effects of cancer chemotherapy. In 2015, researchers working on mice reported that a specific genus of bacterium in the gut enhanced anti-tumour responses to drugs that target PD-L1.

Wargo saw a presentation about the work at a cancer meeting several years ago. “I was floored,” she says. Wargo saw an opportunity to expand the work to humans through her access to clinical samples at MD Anderson.

Exerting influence

Wargo teamed up with epidemiologist Vancheswaran Gopalakrishnan and other researchers to collect faecal samples from more than 100 people with advanced melanoma before they began treatment with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy drugs. The scientists found that those who had the most diverse gut microbes were most likely to respond to the immunotherapy. And tumour growth was reduced in mice that received faecal transplants from people who responded to immunotherapy.

The type of microbe was also linked to differences in responses to treatment, the researchers discovered. For example, people whose guts contained a lot of bacteria from a group called Clostridiales were more likely to respond to treatment, whereas those who had more Bacteroidales bacteria were less likely to respond.

A second study showed that people who received antibiotics to treat infections shortly before or after starting immunotherapy did not respond as well to PD-1-blocking therapies. The researchers—led by cancer immunologist Laurence Zitvogel and cancer biologist Guido Kroemer, both of the Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus in Villejuif, France—also found that the presence of the bacterium Akkermansia muciniphila in both humans and mice was linked to better responses to immunotherapy.

Although it’s too early for clinicians to change how they use antibiotics in people with cancer, the work is a step beyond previous studies that relied mainly on mouse models of cancer, says immunologist Romina Goldszmid of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.

Now, she says, researchers need to learn more about how those microbes exert their influence on the immune system. “What’s really missing in the field, rather than knowing who is there and who isn’t there, is knowing what the bugs are doing,” she says. “We need more information about that.”

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on November 2, 2017.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe