Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T00:19:31.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The developing gut microbiota and its consequences for health

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2018

M.-J. Butel*
Affiliation:
Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculty of pharmacy, Hospital-University Department «Risk in pregnancy», Team “Intestinal ecosystem, Probiotics, Antibiotics”, Paris, France
A.-J. Waligora-Dupriet
Affiliation:
Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculty of pharmacy, Hospital-University Department «Risk in pregnancy», Team “Intestinal ecosystem, Probiotics, Antibiotics”, Paris, France
S. Wydau-Dematteis
Affiliation:
Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculty of pharmacy, Hospital-University Department «Risk in pregnancy», Team “Intestinal ecosystem, Probiotics, Antibiotics”, Paris, France
*
Address for correspondence: M.-J. Butel, Faculté de Pharmacie, EA 4065, 4 avenue de l’Observatoire, Paris 75006, France. E-mail: marie-jose.butel@parisdescartes.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The developmental origin of health and disease highlights the importance of the period of the first 1000 days (from the conception to the 2 years of life). The process of the gut microbiota establishment is included in this time window. Various perinatal determinants, such as cesarean section delivery, type of feeding, antibiotics treatment, gestational age or environment, can affect the pattern of bacterial colonization and result in dysbiosis. The alteration of the early bacterial gut pattern can persist over several months and may have long-lasting functional effects with an impact on disease risk later in life. As for example, early gut dysbiosis has been involved in allergic diseases and obesity occurrence. Besides, while it was thought that the fetus developed under sterile conditions, recent data suggested the presence of a microbiota in utero, particularly in the placenta. Even if the origin of this microbiota and its eventual transfer to the infant are nowadays unknown, this placental microbiota could trigger immune responses in the fetus and would program the infant’s immune development during fetal life, earlier than previously considered. Moreover, several studies demonstrated a link between the composition of placental microbiota and some pathological conditions of the pregnancy. All these data show the evidence of relationships between the neonatal gut establishment and future health outcomes. Hence, the use of pre- and/or probiotics to prevent or repair any early dysbiosis is increasingly attractive to avoid long-term health consequences.

Type
Review
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press and the International Society for Developmental Origins of Health and Disease 2018 

The human gut microbiota

The human microbiome

The human microbiome has emerged as an area of utmost interest, and since the last two decades, numerous studies have highlighted its impact on the physiology leading to impact on health and diseases. The microbiota considered to outnumber by 10 the number of eukaryotic cells has been recently reevaluated at 3.8 1013, showing that the number of bacteria is actually of the same order of human cells with a ratio close to 1/1.Reference Sender, Fuchs and Milo 1 Nevertheless, it does not decreased the major importance of the microbiome. The most heavily inhabited organ with micro-organisms is the gastrointestinal tract, harboring a huge diversity with more than 500 bacterial species that represent about 25 times more genes than the human genome.Reference Qin, Li and Raes 2 , Reference Dietert and Dietert 3 Of particular interest is the gut microbiome, now regarded as an organ. Indeed, this microbiota displays various vital functions.Reference Jones, Ganopolsky, Martoni, Labbe and Prakash 4 Protection against colonization by pathogens is a well-known function mediated by several mechanisms involving direct mechanisms such as production of bacteriocins or bacterial metabolites, or competition for nutrients, or indirect mechanisms such as stimulation of the host innate immunity via the recognition of microbe-associated molecular patterns by cell receptors such as Toll-like receptors. The gut microbiota has also important metabolic functions through fermentation of indigestible carbohydrates responsible for energy harvest and storage, and trophic effect on the intestinal mucosa as well as systemic effects via short-chain fatty-acid (SCFA) production. Finally, gut microbiota is involved in a cross-talk with the immune cells providing major immune roles with modulation of the innate immunity and maturation and development of cell-mediates immunity.

Hence, the gut microbiota interacts extensively with the host, and there are accumulating data linking many human diseases – such as inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, diabetes, asthma and allergies – with dysbiosis, that is, alteration in its composition.Reference Fujimura, Slusher, Cabana and Lynch 5 , Reference Neish 6 However, it remains challenging to identify the precise changes in the microbiota that are responsible for mediating diseases development and when they occur. However, there is currently growing evidence of the importance of the early gut microbiota.

Early life programming

It is becoming an established concept stating that there is a critical window for later health early in life. This concept called the developmental origin of health and disease (DOHaD) is increasingly supported by the scientific community.Reference Charles, Delpierre and Breant 7 It highlights the importance of the period from the conception to the 2 years of life, the so-called ‘first thousand days’ recognized to be a crucial period in the infant development. These 1000 days, according to the motto of the World Health Organization, constitute a unique window of sensitivity in which the environment in all its forms (nutritional, ecological, socio-economical, lifestyles) creates marks on the genome, programming health and the future risk of illness of an individual for life. Hence, understanding how our gut microbial community is shaped and what their determinants are is of great interest.

The gut microbiota establishment in neonates

The bacterial establishment process

It is a complex phenomenon, which in terms of kinetics of acquisition of the microbiota is currently relatively well known. The formation of the gut microbiota starts rapidly from the rupture of membranes. At birth, neonates are suddenly immersed in a rich and varied bacterial environment, and they will be rapidly colonized by an initially simple microbiota mainly originating from mother’s microbiota, in particular from vagina and feces.Reference Gritz and Bhandari 8 , Reference Palmer, Bik, Digiulio, Relman and Brown 9 In case of breastfeeding, breast milk can also participate in the neonatal bacterial establishment.Reference Jost, Lacroix, Braegger, Rochat and Chassard 10 , Reference Fitzstevens, Smith and Hagadorn 11 Infants are then continually exposed to new bacteria from the environment, food and adult skin bacteria via feeding, physical contact or kisses. This leads to a high interindividual variability in both composition and patterns of bacterial colonization during the first weeks of life. During the infant stage of life, numerous bacteria are encountered in the environment and gut microbiota develops with increased diversity toward the adult pattern by age 3 years.Reference Yatsunenko, Rey and Manary 12

Perinatal determinants

Various perinatal determinants can affect the pattern of bacterial colonization, that is, gestational age, mode of delivery, mode of infant feeding, maternal, intrapartum and neonatal antibiotic courses, as well as familial environment, geographical and cultural traditions (Figs 1 and 2).

Fig. 1 Influence of perinatal determinants on the neonatal gut microbiota.

Fig. 2 Bacterial establishment in neonates and health consequences.

The mode of birth affects the initial bacterial establishment since bacteria encountered by the infant vaginally delivered are very different from those experienced through cesarean deliveries. Indeed, infants born by cesarean section are mainly faced with bacteria from their environment: air and medical staff, and a delayed colonization by maternal bacteria is observed in numerous studies.Reference Biasucci, Rubini and Riboni 13 Reference Martin, Makino and Cetinyurek Yavuz 16 Interestingly, although throughout the first year of life bacterial profiles become more similar whatever the mode of birth, differences in bacterial profiles can persist throughout the first year of life.Reference Rutayisire, Huang, Liu and Tao 15 , Reference Azad, Konya and Maughan 17 , Reference Backhed, Roswall and Peng 18 Differences linked to cesarean birth has been reported later in life in an American cohort of adults; however, whether it was acquired during birth is unknown.Reference Goedert, Hua, Yu and Shi 19 In a recent study, Chu et al. did not observed any effect of the mode of delivery on the neonatal and infant microbiota at 6 weeks.Reference Chu, Ma and Prince 20 However, at birth they analyzed the meconium which reflects rather the in utero environment than colonization at birth. Nevertheless, their findings on the meconium microbiota, which appears specific compared with other neonates’ body sites and not affected by the mode of birth, suggest a maternal origin that seeds the neonate earlier than previously thought.

Type of feeding has a great influence on the bacterial establishment. Breastfed infants have a microbiota profile with a specific high amount of Bifidobacterium, a genus known for its potential health benefits, whereas formula fed infants have a more diverse profile.Reference Azad, Konya and Maughan 17 , Reference Guaraldi and Salvatori 21 This influence is linked to the unique composition of human breast milk, rich in complex non-digestible oligosaccharides with more than 200 different molecules.Reference Jost, Lacroix, Braegger and Chassard 22 These aspects make breast milk a special feature in the world of living organisms with a very specific level and composition, in particular compared with cow milk, which is the basis of infant formulas. Due to their structure (β-glycosidic bonds), these oligosaccharides are not hydrolyzable by human digestive enzymes and therefore not assimilated in the small intestine. Hence, they will be substrates for micro-organisms in the large intestine, promoting the growth of specific bacteria. Nowadays, most infant formulas are supplemented with oligosaccharides, in particular fructo- and galacto-oligosaccharides with the aim to improve the intestinal microbiota in early life.Reference Oozeer, van and Ludwig 23 In addition, recent studies based on culture and molecular techniques have shown that breast milk could contain commensal bacteria with beneficial potentialities such as lactobacilli and bifidobacteria at levels ranging between 101 and 105 colony forming units/ml.Reference Fitzstevens, Smith and Hagadorn 11 Their origin remains unclear, either from the mother’s skin suggesting a contamination or from bacterial translocation from the maternal digestive tract to the mammary gland after internalization into leukocytes.Reference Jost, Lacroix, Braegger, Rochat and Chassard 10 Nevertheless, this microbiota could participate in the bacterial establishment in newborns as shown by studies that demonstrated similarities between breast milk bacteria and neonatal fecal microbiota.Reference Jost, Lacroix, Braegger and Chassard 22

The impact of antibiotics has first been examined in terms of selection of resistant micro-organisms. By contrast, the influence of antibiotic treatment on the bacterial establishment has been poorly investigated. Nevertheless, some studies showed the alteration of the bacterial profile in antibiotic-treated infants even for a short period. The main feature was a decrease in the biodiversity.Reference Tanaka, Kobayashi and Songjinda 24 , Reference Fouhy, Guinane and Hussey 25 An increase in potentially pathogenic and antibiotic-resistant bacteria associated to a decrease in potentially beneficial bacteria such as bifidobacteria and lactobacilli has also been reported.Reference Gibson, Crofts and Dantas 26 Intrapartum antibiotics may also impact the bacterial establishment.Reference Arboleya, Sanchez and Milani 27 , Reference Jaureguy, Carton and Panel 28 Interestingly, these early dysbiosis are still visible after a few weeks,Reference Tanaka, Kobayashi and Songjinda 24 , Reference Fouhy, Guinane and Hussey 25 , Reference Arboleya, Sanchez and Milani 27 suggesting the potential long-term consequences of dysbiosis linked to early antibiotic courses.

Gestational age is a major factor in the bacterial establishment, particularly in very and extremely preterm infants who can have an aberrant microbiota profile compared with fullterm infants.Reference La Rosa, Warner and Zhou 29 Reference Groer, Luciano and Dishaw 31 Despite the great intervariability observed, the main feature of the bacterial establishment in the very preterm infants is a great imbalance in the bacterial profile. In fact, a delay in bacteria originating from the mother such as enterobacteria, or anaerobes belonging to the genera Bacteroides and Bifidobacterium is observed whereas bacteria from the environment such as staphylococci are at high levels with a high frequency. Colonization by Clostridium which is a spore-forming bacteria that can be in the environment may be dominant and related to the postnatal age.Reference La Rosa, Warner and Zhou 29 , Reference Ferraris, Butel and Campeotto 32 This bacterial establishment can be explained by the fact that these infants are more frequently born by cesarean section, very rapidly separated from their mother, placed into a highly sanitized intensive care environment, and frequently treated by broad-spectrum antibiotics. This particular bacterial pattern represent a risk factor for short-term diseases such as sepsis or necrotizing enterocolitis, the most dreaded disease in neonatal intensive care units.Reference Roze, Ancel and Lepage 33 , Reference Cassir, Benamar and Khalil 34

The environment can also condition the development of the microbiota, which may explain the delayed development of the maternal microbiota observed since a decade in industrialized countries, related to higher perinatal hygiene conditions in our countries compared with developing countries. The importance of the environment was also shown in studies that reported differences in gut microbiota depending on the geographical location.Reference Fallani, Young and Scott 35 Reference Kemppainen, Ardissone and Davis-Richardson 37

Long-term health consequences of early dysbiosis in bacterial establishment

Exposure to all perinatal determinants described above may result in dysbiosis, that is, either a decrease in bacterial diversity or a delayed colonization by potential health beneficial bacteria, or both. This early dysbiosis can persist over several months and can have therefore long-lasting functional effects with an impact on disease risk later in lifeReference Gritz and Bhandari 8 , Reference Neu 38 (Fig. 1). Several epidemiologic studies have shown that factors known to alter the early bacterial gut pattern – such as cesarean section delivery, prematurity, and early exposure to antibiotics – have been found as risk factors for various diseases, as for example, allergic diseases or overweight/obesity as described later in the text. Dysbiosis has also been involved in the gut–brain axis, and a recent study reported an increased risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in preterm infants born at less than 27 weeks of gestational age and known to have a major dysbiosis.Reference Kuzniewicz, Wi and Qian 39

Early dysbiosis and allergic diseases

The prevalence of allergic diseases has increased globally over the last 50 years with discrepancies among their different clinical expressions, that is, atopic dermatitis, or intestinal and respiratory symptoms. It clearly appears nowadays that this increase is linked to sequential changes in lifestyle such as hygiene, indoor entertainment, changes in diet, and there is mounting evidence that the microbiota is a key environmental factor that plays a role. Indeed, allergic diseases are immunological pathologies, hallmarked by the differentiation of naive T cells into interleukin 4 secreting T cells (T helper type 2 cells or Th2). Neonates are biased toward Th2 cell responses with reference to adults.Reference Adkins, Leclerc and Marshall-Clarke 40 This immature Th2-dominant neonatal response undergoes environment-driven maturation via microbial contact during the early postnatal period, leading to the development of intestinal barrier functions and of regulatory T cell and a Th balance.Reference Quigley 41 , Reference Ohnmacht 42 Moreover, the immune system appears to be regulated by microbiota in a time restricted period during early life and to be influenced by the maternal microbiota.Reference Okada, Kuhn, Feillet and Bach 43 , Reference Gensollen, Iyer, Kasper and Blumberg 44 Alterations in the sequential establishment of gut microbiota observed in western countries could therefore be responsible for a Th balance deviation toward a Th2 profile, a major factor in the rise of allergic diseases. Indeed, epidemiological studies have linked factors influencing microbiota establishment and risk of allergy. Several studies showed that treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics in infancy, leading to dysbiosis, is associated with increased susceptibility to allergy such as asthma,Reference Foliaki, Pearce and Bjorksten 45 , Reference Pitter, Ludvigsson and Romor 46 eczemaReference Tsakok, McKeever, Yeo and Flohr 47 and allergic rhinitis.Reference Alm, Goksor and Pettersson 48 Cesarean section was also involved as a risk factor of food allergy/food atopy, allergic rhinitis, asthma, but meta-analyses highlighted conflicting results.Reference Huang, Chen and Zhao 49 , Reference Bager, Wohlfahrt and Westergaard 50 Cesarean section was positively associated with multiple sensitizations in the French cohort PARIS,Reference Gabet, Just, Couderc, Seta and Momas 51 whereas there was no evidence of such association neither in the first 5 years of life of the Asian cohort GUSTOReference Loo, Sim and Loy 52 nor in the Danish study.Reference Brix, Stokholm, Jonsdottir, Kristensen and Secher 53 The association could be influenced by the underlying indication for cesarean delivery. Indeed, emergency cesarean delivery, in contrast with elective one, often occurs after the onset of the labor and membranes rupture. It is then associated with both maternal and fetal stress and exposition to vaginal microbiota, favoring a colonization more similar to vaginal delivery. If Huang et al.Reference Huang, Chen and Zhao 49 found a 20% increase in the subsequent risk of asthma in children delivered by both elective or emergency cesarean section, Rusconi et al.Reference Rusconi, Zugna and Annesi-Maesano 54 who worked on individual data from nine European birth cohorts concluded that the increased risk of asthma is more associated to elective cesarean delivery, especially among children born at term. Prematurity and breastfeeding are both perinatal determinants that impact the bacterial establishment and they are studied for their role toward allergy risk. However, epidemiological studies yielded conflicting results, mainly due to differences in the study designs and study population, including definition of breastfed infants (partial, exclusive).

Besides, the role of the gut microbiota in the development of oral tolerance, as well as specific microbial signatures identification in allergy were confirmed using mice models.Reference Noval Rivas, Burton and Wise 55 In humans, several studies highlighted differences in the composition of bacterial communities in the feces of subject with or without allergic diseases; however, available epidemiological studies remain controversial. Numerous studies support that a dysbiosis in infancy is more importantReference Thompson-Chagoyan, Vieites, Maldonado, Edwards and Gil 56 than the prevalence of specific bacterial taxa.Reference Melli, do Carmo-Rodrigues, Araujo-Filho, Sole and de Morais 57

Prospective studies have shown changes in the fecal microbiota before the onset of any atopic symptoms. Colonization by Clostridium and especially Clostridium difficile has been several times, but not always, associated with development of atopic dermatitis, wheezing and sensitization before 2 years, while a high level of Escherichia coli has been associated only with the risk of developing eczema. Colonization by Clostridium cluster XIVa at 3 weeks of life could be an early indicator of the future development of asthmaReference Vael, Vanheirstraeten, Desager and Goossens 58 and food allergy.Reference Blazquez and Berin 59

Moreover, longitudinal studies highlighted different microbiota alterations associated with allergy only during the first weeks of life, defining then a critical window in early life. A decrease in diversity at 1 week and 1 month but not at 12 months was associated with asthma at 7 years of age.Reference Abrahamsson, Jakobsson and Andersson 60 Recently, Arrieta et al.Reference Arrieta, Stiemsma and Dimitriu 61 showed at 3 months of age, but not at 1 year, a transient decrease in the relative abundance of the bacterial genera Lachnospira, Veillonella, Faecalibacterium and Rothia during the first 100 days of life. Other bacterial groups were associated with an increased risk of asthma at 4 years of life, showing the complexity to point up the link between microbiota and pathologies.Reference Stiemsma, Arrieta and Dimitriu 62

Early dysbiosis and obesity

As for allergy, the prevalence of obesity increased tremendously over the last decades. If genetic transmission of risk of overweight and obesity is well established, others factors such as the early dysbiosis has received several lines of evidence. A first epidemiologic study on a cohort of 1255 infants showed that infants delivered by cesarean section had two-fold higher odds of childhood obesity, even after adjusting for maternal body mass index, birth weight and other confounding variables.Reference Huh, Rifas-Shiman and Zera 63 Likewise, exposure of infants to antibiotics was found to increase risk of childhood overweight in normal weight mother but not in overweight or obese mother.Reference Ajslev, Andersen, Gamborg, Sorensen and Jess 64 Moreover, the risk of childhood overweight is increase in child born from women with a high gestational body mass index, women who have a gut microbiota enriched in Bacteroides, Clostridium and Staphylococcus.Reference Ajslev, Andersen, Gamborg, Sorensen and Jess 64 , Reference Collado, Laitinen, Salminen and Isolauri 65 This is in accordance with a transmission of obesogenic microbiota through vaginal delivery but was not confirmed in other studies.Reference Azad, Bridgman, Becker and Kozyrskyj 66 However, experimental mice model confirmed that low dose of penicillin amplifies diet-induced obesity and that perturbation during a critical window in early life leads to long-term increased adiposity.Reference Cox, Yamanishi and Sohn 67 Among perinatal factors that influence gut microbiota establishment, cesarean delivery, despite some controversial study, was also associated with an increased risk of obesity.Reference Wen and Duffy 68 Breastfeeding is also reported to affect the risk of obesity. This influence can be due to the differences of the gut microbiota between breastfed and formula fed infants. Furthermore, human breast milk microbiota was reported to be different in its composition between mothers who underwent either cesarean section or vaginal delivery. Moreover, breast milk of obese mothers is characterized by a reduced microbiota diversity, and a distinct microbiota composition as compared with that from lean mothers.Reference Wen and Duffy 68

Early dysbiosis and brain disorders

The concept of the gut–brain axis, that is, a bidirectional channel of communication between the central nervous system and the enteric nervous system has long been appreciated. This complex communication ensures maintenance and coordination of gastrointestinal functions as well as a feedback from the gut to the brain.Reference Foster, Rinaman and Cryan 69 Since a decade, gut microbiota has emerged to be a new participant of these connexions leading to the concept of the microbiota–gut–brain axis. Numerous transmission routes can explain this complex network of communication, and recent findings point to the vague nerve, neuroendocrine systems and growth factors.Reference Rieder, Wisniewski, Alderman and Campbell 70 Today, accumulating evidence supports the influence of the gut microbiota on stress-related behaviors including anxiety and depression, as well as neuropsychiatric disorders.Reference Petra, Panagiotidou and Hatziagelaki 71 ASD is a severe neurodevelopmental disorder that impairs the child ability of social communications, and which exact mechanism is not clearly elucidated. ASD is often associated to gastrointestinal problems, and increasing evidence revealed a gut dysbiosis in ASD suffering children.Reference Vuong and Hsiao 72 , Reference Yang, Tian and Yang 73 Up to now, there is little consensus on specific bacteria involved. Several studies have reported a higher abundance of bacteria belonging to the genus Clostridium. Besides, a decrease in Bacteroidetes/Firmicutes ratio and an increase in Lactobacillus and Desulfovibrio has been correlated with the severity of the pathology. Alterations in the gut functions have also been described, with, for instance, changes in bacterial metabolites that may contribute to the ASD pathogenesis. The potential harmful role of the gut microbiota has also been suggested by improvement in ASD clinical symptoms by antibiotic courses. Immune dysregulation frequently observed in ASD patients could be linked to an abnormal early bacterial pattern. Moreover, animal models demonstrated that the gut microbiota participate in the development of brain circuits involved in the control of stress, motor activity and anxiety behavior and cognitive functions.Reference Diaz Heijtz 74 It therefore raises the possibility that early dysbiosis may impact the neurodevelopment and the brain functions. Interestingly, prematurity was associated with an increased ASD risk, with a higher frequency in infants born at a lower gestational age, known to be colonized by a more aberrant microbiota.Reference Kuzniewicz, Wi and Qian 39 Elucidate the mechanisms mediating the interactions between the gut microbiota and the developing brain deserve further studies.

Could microbial programming of health and disease begin before birth?

For several decades the human fetus and placenta were considered sterile but discovery of a colonization in the meconium suggested a colonization in utero.Reference Jimenez, Marin and Martin 75 Today, there is mounting evidence of this microbial colonization despite fetal intact membranes and out of any infectious context. Indeed, placenta has been reported to harbor a specific microbiota through mainly molecular biology approaches.Reference Aagaard, Ma and Antony 76 Reference Stout, Conlon and Landeau 78 Moreover, culture allowed identifying viable bacteria in the placenta.Reference Collado, Rautava, Aakko, Isolauri and Salminen 77 This microbiota appears to be quantitatively low but with some diversity and exhibits spatially variable profiles according to the different compartments of placenta (basal plate, placental villous and fetal membrane). Despite few concordant results, the entire literature on the placental microbiota does not allow a clear knowledge of neither its composition nor its origin. Some studies found a placental microbiome closely related to the oral microbiome rather than to the vaginal one,Reference Aagaard, Ma and Antony 76 whereas others found a potential connection with the bacterial species found in the vagina.Reference Han, Shen, Chung, Buhimschi and Buhimschi 79 , Reference Doyle, Harris and Kamiza 80 Even if the origin of the placental microbiota is still unknown it is recognized that it comes from the maternal microbiotas, from either oral cavity by dissemination, or vaginal microbiota or intestinal microbiota by translocation. Mounting importance is given to these first colonizing bacteria that are supposed to impact the future subsequent health of the mother and her infant. First, these bacteria and/or their DNA and/or other bacterial structures could trigger immune responses in the fetus and would therefore program the infant’s immune development during fetal life, earlier than previously considered. Second, several recent studies demonstrated a link between the composition of placental microbiota and some pathological conditions of the pregnancy.Reference Aagaard, Ma and Antony 76 , Reference Stout, Conlon and Landeau 78 , Reference Doyle, Harris and Kamiza 80 Reference Zheng, Xiao and Zhang 86 In particular, it was shown in different studies a placental dysbiosis in preterm birth. However, discrepancies between studies suggested that biological and clinical implications of this microbiome are likely dependent on the microbiota profile that could or not favor a fetal–placental inflammation and early preterm birth.Reference Stout, Conlon and Landeau 78 Nowadays, there are more questions than answers about the origin of this microbiota and its eventual transfer to the infant before or during the delivery. However, it is difficult to conclude on the exact composition of this placental microbiota because all these recent studies reported different results about the bacterial species found in placenta. The variability in these results could be the consequence of a lack of precautions to prevent contamination of samples and/or a lack of appropriate controls. Besides, because of the paucity of the placental microbiota, it has been rightly pointed out by some scientists that the bacteria found in the placenta could be contaminants.Reference Perez-Munoz, Arrieta, Ramer-Tait and Walter 87 Thus, to date, data from the literature strongly suggest the existence of a placental microbiota that remains to be rigorously explored and characterized.

Several studies except oneReference Digiulio, Callahan and McMurdie 88 show significant alterations in the gut microbiota during pregnancy, with a reduced individual richness and an increased between-subject diversity.Reference Nuriel-Ohayon, Neuman and Koren 89 , Reference Koren, Goodrich and Cullender 90 Alterations in abundance of several species have been observed, as for example, an increased abundance of members of Actinobacteria and Proteobacteria and a reduced abundance of Faecalibacterium and other SCFA producers.Reference Koren, Goodrich and Cullender 90 Mechanisms of these modifications remain to be clarified, but changes in the host immunology as well as hormonal pattern may be important. These changes, that is, dysbiosis, inflammation and weight gain, are features of metabolic syndrome, which may be highly beneficial for pregnant women as they promote energy storage and provide the growth of the fetus. Besides, consequences of the maternal composition during pregnancy on the neonate in terms of health remain to be determined. Indeed, the maternal microbiota was shown to impact the immune gene expression and the number of innate cells in the neonate.Reference Gomez de Aguero, Ganal-Vonarburg and Fuhrer 91 Furthermore, maternal probiotic supplementation was shown to be able to modify the infant microbiota and to alter Toll-like receptor genes expression in the placenta and it was suggested that microbial exposure during pregnancy may be important for preventing allergic disease in the offspring.Reference Abrahamsson, Wu and Jenmalm 92 By contrast, aberrancies observed in the gut microbiota of pregnant women associated with both overweight and weight gain can be one factor contributing to obesity.Reference Collado, Isolauri, Laitinen and Salminen 93

Prebiotic and probiotics supplementation

The mounting evidence of relationships between the neonatal bacterial establishment and future health outcomes leads to the interest of a possible early modulation of the gut microbiota by the use of pre- and/or probiotics. Prebiotics are defined as substrate that is selectively utilized by host micro-organisms conferring a health benefit.Reference Gibson, Hutkins and Sanders 94 Probiotics are live micro-organisms that when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host.Reference Hill, Guarner and Reid 95 However, although their use has been increasing since the last two decades, it remains under debate, and it warrants further research before large recommendations of their use despite a clear appealing interest and encouraging results in some fields. This currently limits the recommendations made by expert committees. First, determining what constitutes the normal baseline microbiota colonization and defining dysbiosis and its potential deleterious health consequences remains questionable and warrant further research. Second, many questions remain to be answered in terms of which supplementation for which patients, which bacterial strains, effective dose, duration. Moreover, proven long-term health benefits of these supplementation are often lacking. For the period from conception to early development, that is, the first 1000 days, little research has been done and the mechanisms by which strains actually confer health still remain elemental. The optimal time to administer probiotics, the strain, dose and duration as well, to improve later health of the neonate, such as cognitive function, reduce atopy or infections and inflammatory events, or to favor a good outcome of pregnancy, by for instance reducing the risk of premature birth, requires more study (for review see Reid et al.Reference Reid, Kumar and Khan 96 ). However, some recommendations have recently been published. Based on meta-analyses, early supplementation by probiotics of preterm infants has been recognized to decrease both incidence and severity of necrotizing enterocolitis.Reference Alfaleh and Anabrees 97 Encouraging but discordant results has been reported for the supplementation with the aim to prevent from pediatric allergic diseases. This led to the World Allergy Organization (WAO) to write down specific recommendations concerning this supplementation limiting it to the population at a higher risk of developing allergy.Reference Fiocchi, Pawankar and Cuello-Garcia 98 Concerning prebiotic, the WAO suggests to use prebiotic supplementation in infants who are not exclusively breastfed and not using prebiotic supplementation in exclusively breastfed infants.Reference Cuello-Garcia, Fiocchi and Pawankar 99 Both of these recommendations are conditional and based on very low certainty of evidence. In addition, WAO has chosen not to provide a recommendation on prebiotic supplementation during pregnancy or while breastfeeding. Indeed, to date, there are no experimental or observational studies of prebiotic supplementation in pregnant women or breastfeeding mothers.

Hence, there is a potential for pre- and/or probiotics to prevent or repair any early dysbiosis. Their use appears to be a safe and feasible method to alter maternal and neonatal microbiota aiming at improving pregnancy and neonatal outcomes.Reference Sohn and Underwood 100 It warrants researches to edict recommendations based on scientific proofs of their beneficial effects on health.

Concluding remarks

The context of the DOHaD highlights the importance of the first 1000 days which are a critical window with implications for long-term health. Among several factors, the first gut colonizers and the subsequent gut microbiota establishment appears to be major determinants for gut maturation, metabolic and immunologic programming and consequently for short- and long-term health status. Hence, mounting importance is given to improve this critical period by promoting a ‘healthy’ gut ecosystem using pre- or probiotics supplementation, but also by taking into account the perinatal determinants impacting the bacterial establishment, for instance, by limiting the use of maternal and neonatal antibiotics or cesarean section.

Conflicts of Interest

None.

Financial Support

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Acknowledgments

Part of this update has been presented in an invited lecture at the 3rd Congress of the French-speaking Society of the Developmental Origins of Health and Diseases (SF-DOHaD), Paris, 1-2 December 2016.

References

1. Sender, R, Fuchs, S, Milo, R. Revised estimates for the number of human and bacteria cells in the body. PLoS Biol. 2016; 14, e1002533.Google Scholar
2. Qin, J, Li, R, Raes, J, et al. A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature. 2010; 464, 5965.Google Scholar
3. Dietert, RR, Dietert, JM. The microbiome and sustainable healthcare. Healthcare (Basel). 2015; 3, 100129.Google Scholar
4. Jones, ML, Ganopolsky, JG, Martoni, CJ, Labbe, A, Prakash, S. Emerging science of the human microbiome. Gut Microbes. 2014; 5, 446457.Google Scholar
5. Fujimura, KE, Slusher, NA, Cabana, MD, Lynch, SV. Role of the gut microbiota in defining human health. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2010; 8, 435454.Google Scholar
6. Neish, AS. Microbes in gastrointestinal health and disease. Gastroenterology. 2009; 136, 6580.Google Scholar
7. Charles, MA, Delpierre, C, Breant, B. Developmental origin of health and adult diseases (dohad): evolution of a concept over three decades. Med Sci (Paris). 2016; 32, 1520.Google Scholar
8. Gritz, EC, Bhandari, V. The human neonatal gut microbiome: a brief review. Front Pediatr. 2015; 3, 17.Google Scholar
9. Palmer, C, Bik, EM, Digiulio, DB, Relman, DA, Brown, PO. Development of the human infant intestinal microbiota. PLoS Biol. 2007; 5, e177.Google Scholar
10. Jost, T, Lacroix, C, Braegger, CP, Rochat, F, Chassard, C. Vertical mother-neonate transfer of maternal gut bacteria via breastfeeding. Environ Microbiol. 2014; 16, 28912904.Google Scholar
11. Fitzstevens, JL, Smith, KC, Hagadorn, JI, et al. Systematic review of the human milk microbiota. Nutr Clin Pract. 2017; 32, 354364.Google Scholar
12. Yatsunenko, T, Rey, FE, Manary, MJ, et al. Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography. Nature. 2012; 486, 222227.Google Scholar
13. Biasucci, G, Rubini, M, Riboni, S, et al. Mode of delivery affects the bacterial community in the newborn gut. Early Hum Dev. 2010; 86(Suppl. 1), 1315.Google Scholar
14. Dominguez-Bello, MG, Costello, EK, Contreras, M, et al. Delivery mode shapes the acquisition and structure of the initial microbiota across multiple body habitats in newborns. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010; 107, 1197111975.Google Scholar
15. Rutayisire, E, Huang, K, Liu, Y, Tao, F. The mode of delivery affects the diversity and colonization pattern of the gut microbiota during the first year of infants’ life: a systematic review. BMC Gastroenterol. 2016; 16, 86.Google Scholar
16. Martin, R, Makino, H, Cetinyurek Yavuz, A, et al. Early-life events, including mode of delivery and type of feeding, siblings and gender, shape the developing gut microbiota. PLoS One. 2016; 11, e0158498.Google Scholar
17. Azad, MB, Konya, T, Maughan, H, et al. Gut microbiota of healthy Canadian infants: profiles by mode of delivery and infant diet at 4 months. CMAJ. 2013; 185, 385394.Google Scholar
18. Backhed, F, Roswall, J, Peng, Y, et al. Dynamics and stabilization of the human gut microbiome during the first year of life. Cell Host Microbe. 2015; 17, 852.Google Scholar
19. Goedert, JJ, Hua, X, Yu, G, Shi, J. Diversity and composition of the adult fecal microbiome associated with history of cesarean birth or appendectomy: analysis of the American gut project. EBioMedicine. 2014; 1, 167172.Google Scholar
20. Chu, DM, Ma, J, Prince, AL, et al. Maturation of the infant microbiome community structure and function across multiple body sites and in relation to mode of delivery. Nature Med. 2017; 23, 314326.Google Scholar
21. Guaraldi, F, Salvatori, G. Effect of breast and formula feeding on gut microbiota shaping in newborns. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2012; 2, 94.Google Scholar
22. Jost, T, Lacroix, C, Braegger, C, Chassard, C. Impact of human milk bacteria and oligosaccharides on neonatal gut microbiota establishment and gut health. Nutr Rev. 2015; 73, 426437.Google Scholar
23. Oozeer, R, van, LK, Ludwig, T, et al. Intestinal microbiology in early life: specific prebiotics can have similar functionalities as human-milk oligosaccharides. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013; 98, 561S571S.Google Scholar
24. Tanaka, S, Kobayashi, T, Songjinda, P, et al. Influence of antibiotic exposure in the early postnatal period on the development of intestinal microbiota. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2009; 56, 8087.Google Scholar
25. Fouhy, F, Guinane, CM, Hussey, S, et al. High-throughput sequencing reveals the incomplete, short-term recovery of infant gut microbiota following parenteral antibiotic treatment with ampicillin and gentamicin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012; 56, 58115820.Google Scholar
26. Gibson, MK, Crofts, TS, Dantas, G. Antibiotics and the developing infant gut microbiota and resistome. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2015; 27, 5156.Google Scholar
27. Arboleya, S, Sanchez, B, Milani, C, et al. Intestinal microbiota development in preterm neonates and effect of perinatal antibiotics. J Pediatr. 2015; 166, 538544.Google Scholar
28. Jaureguy, F, Carton, M, Panel, P, et al. Effects of intrapartum prophylaxis on the intestinal bacterial colonization in infants. J Clin Microbiol. 2004; 42, 51845188.Google Scholar
29. La Rosa, PS, Warner, BB, Zhou, Y, et al. Patterned progression of bacterial populations in the premature infant gut. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111, 1252212527.Google Scholar
30. Aujoulat, F, Roudiere, L, Picaud, JC, et al. Temporal dynamics of the very premature infant gut dominant microbiota. BMC Microbiol. 2014; 14, 325.Google Scholar
31. Groer, MW, Luciano, AA, Dishaw, LJ, et al. Development of the preterm infant gut microbiome: a research priority. Microbiome. 2014; 2, 38.Google Scholar
32. Ferraris, L, Butel, MJ, Campeotto, F, et al. Clostridia in premature neonates’ gut: incidence, antibiotic susceptibility, and perinatal determinants influencing colonization. PLoS One. 2012; 7, e30594.Google Scholar
33. Roze, JC, Ancel, PY, Lepage, P, et al. Nutritional strategies and gut microbiota composition as risk factors for necrotizing enterocolitis in very-preterm infants. Am J Clin Nutr. 2017; 106, 821830.Google Scholar
34. Cassir, N, Benamar, S, Khalil, JB, et al. Clostridium butyricum strains and dysbiosis linked to necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm neonates. Clin Infect Dis. 2015; 61, 11071115.Google Scholar
35. Fallani, M, Young, D, Scott, J, et al. Intestinal microbiota of 6-week-old infants across Europe: geographic influence beyond delivery mode, breast-feeding, and antibiotics. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2010; 51, 7784.Google Scholar
36. Itani, T, Ayoub Moubareck, C, Melki, I, et al. Establishment and development of the intestinal microbiota of preterm infants in a Lebanese tertiary hospital. Anaerobe. 2017; 43, 414.Google Scholar
37. Kemppainen, KM, Ardissone, AN, Davis-Richardson, AG, et al. Early childhood gut microbiomes show strong geographic differences among subjects at high risk for type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2015; 38, 329332.Google Scholar
38. Neu, J. Developmental aspects of maternal-fetal, and infant gut microbiota and implications for long-term health. Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol. 2015; 1, 6.Google Scholar
39. Kuzniewicz, MW, Wi, S, Qian, Y, et al. Prevalence and neonatal factors associated with autism spectrum disorders in preterm infants. J Pediatr. 2014; 164, 2025.Google Scholar
40. Adkins, B, Leclerc, C, Marshall-Clarke, S. Neonatal adaptive immunity comes of age. Nat Rev Immunol. 2004; 4, 553564.Google Scholar
41. Quigley, EM. Leaky gut – concept or clinical entity? Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2016; 32, 7479.Google Scholar
42. Ohnmacht, C. Microbiota, regulatory T cell subsets, and allergic disorders. Allergo J Int. 2016; 25, 114123.Google Scholar
43. Okada, H, Kuhn, C, Feillet, H, Bach, JF. The ‘hygiene hypothesis’ for autoimmune and allergic diseases: an update. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 2010; 160, 19.Google Scholar
44. Gensollen, T, Iyer, SS, Kasper, DL, Blumberg, RS. How colonization by microbiota in early life shapes the immune system. Science. 2016; 352, 539544.Google Scholar
45. Foliaki, S, Pearce, N, Bjorksten, B, et al. Antibiotic use in infancy and symptoms of asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, and eczema in children 6 and 7 years old: international study of asthma and allergies in childhood phase iii. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009; 124, 982989.Google Scholar
46. Pitter, G, Ludvigsson, JF, Romor, P, et al. Antibiotic exposure in the first year of life and later treated asthma, a population based birth cohort study of 143,000 children. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016; 31, 8594.Google Scholar
47. Tsakok, T, McKeever, TM, Yeo, L, Flohr, C. Does early life exposure to antibiotics increase the risk of eczema? A systematic review. Br J Dermatol. 2013; 169, 983991.Google Scholar
48. Alm, B, Goksor, E, Pettersson, R, et al. Antibiotics in the first week of life is a risk factor for allergic rhinitis at school age. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2014; 25, 468472.Google Scholar
49. Huang, L, Chen, Q, Zhao, Y, et al. Is elective cesarean section associated with a higher risk of asthma? A meta-analysis. J Asthma. 2015; 52, 1625.Google Scholar
50. Bager, P, Wohlfahrt, J, Westergaard, T. Caesarean delivery and risk of atopy and allergic disease: meta-analyses. Clin Exp Allergy. 2008; 38, 634642.Google Scholar
51. Gabet, S, Just, J, Couderc, R, Seta, N, Momas, I. Allergic sensitisation in early childhood: patterns and related factors in PARIS birth cohort. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2016; 219, 792800.Google Scholar
52. Loo, EXL, Sim, JZT, Loy, SL, et al. Associations between caesarean delivery and allergic outcomes: results from the gusto study. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2017; 118, 636638.Google Scholar
53. Brix, N, Stokholm, L, Jonsdottir, F, Kristensen, K, Secher, NJ. Comparable risk of childhood asthma after vaginal delivery and emergency caesarean section. Dan Med J. 2017; 64, pii: A5313.Google Scholar
54. Rusconi, F, Zugna, D, Annesi-Maesano, I, et al. Mode of delivery and asthma at school age in 9 European birth cohorts. Am J Epidemiol. 2017; 185, 465473.Google Scholar
55. Noval Rivas, M, Burton, OT, Wise, P, et al. A microbiota signature associated with experimental food allergy promotes allergic sensitization and anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013; 131, 201212.Google Scholar
56. Thompson-Chagoyan, OC, Vieites, JM, Maldonado, J, Edwards, C, Gil, A. Changes in faecal microbiota of infants with cow’s milk protein allergy – a Spanish prospective case-control 6-month follow-up study. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2010; 21, e394e400.Google Scholar
57. Melli, LC, do Carmo-Rodrigues, MS, Araujo-Filho, HB, Sole, D, de Morais, MB. Intestinal microbiota and allergic diseases: a systematic review. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2016; 44, 177188.Google Scholar
58. Vael, C, Vanheirstraeten, L, Desager, KN, Goossens, H. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of neonatal intestinal microbiota in relation to the development of asthma. BMC Microbiol. 2011; 11, 68.Google Scholar
59. Blazquez, AB, Berin, MC. Microbiome and food allergy. Transl Res. 2017; 179, 199203.Google Scholar
60. Abrahamsson, TR, Jakobsson, HE, Andersson, AF, et al. Low gut microbiota diversity in early infancy precedes asthma at school age. Clin Exp Allergy. 2014; 44, 842850.Google Scholar
61. Arrieta, MC, Stiemsma, LT, Dimitriu, PA, et al. Early infancy microbial and metabolic alterations affect risk of childhood asthma. Sci Transl Med. 2015; 7, 307ra152.Google Scholar
62. Stiemsma, LT, Arrieta, MC, Dimitriu, PA, et al. Shifts in Lachnospira and Clostridium sp. in the 3-month stool microbiome are associated with preschool age asthma. Clin Sci (Lond). 2016; 130, 21992207.Google Scholar
63. Huh, SY, Rifas-Shiman, SL, Zera, CA, et al. Delivery by caesarean section and risk of obesity in preschool age children: a prospective cohort study. Arch Dis Child. 2012; 97, 610616.Google Scholar
64. Ajslev, TA, Andersen, CS, Gamborg, M, Sorensen, TI, Jess, T. Childhood overweight after establishment of the gut microbiota: the role of delivery mode, pre-pregnancy weight and early administration of antibiotics. Int J Obes (Lond). 2011; 35, 522529.Google Scholar
65. Collado, MC, Laitinen, K, Salminen, S, Isolauri, E. Maternal weight and excessive weight gain during pregnancy modify the immunomodulatory potential of breast milk. Pediatr Res. 2012; 72, 7785.Google Scholar
66. Azad, MB, Bridgman, SL, Becker, AB, Kozyrskyj, AL. Infant antibiotic exposure and the development of childhood overweight and central adiposity. Int J Obes (Lond). 2014; 38, 12901298.Google Scholar
67. Cox, LM, Yamanishi, S, Sohn, J, et al. Altering the intestinal microbiota during a critical developmental window has lasting metabolic consequences. Cell. 2014; 158, 705721.Google Scholar
68. Wen, L, Duffy, A. Factors influencing the gut microbiota, inflammation, and type 2 diabetes. J Nutr. 2017; 147, 1468S1475S.Google Scholar
69. Foster, JA, Rinaman, L, Cryan, JF. Stress & the gut-brain axis: regulation by the microbiome. Neurobiol Stress. 2017; 7, 124136.Google Scholar
70. Rieder, R, Wisniewski, PJ, Alderman, BL, Campbell, SC. Microbes and mental health: a review. Brain Behav Immun. 2017; 66, 917.Google Scholar
71. Petra, AI, Panagiotidou, S, Hatziagelaki, E, et al. Gut-microbiota-brain axis and its effect on neuropsychiatric disorders with suspected immune dysregulation. Clin Ther. 2015; 37, 984995.Google Scholar
72. Vuong, HE, Hsiao, EY. Emerging roles for the gut microbiome in autism spectrum disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2017; 81, 411423.Google Scholar
73. Yang, Y, Tian, J, Yang, B. Targeting gut microbiome: a novel and potential therapy for autism. Life Sci. 2017; 194, 111119.Google Scholar
74. Diaz Heijtz, R. Fetal, neonatal, and infant microbiome: perturbations and subsequent effects on brain development and behavior. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016; 21, 410417.Google Scholar
75. Jimenez, E, Marin, ML, Martin, R, et al. Is meconium from healthy newborns actually sterile? Res Microbiol. 2008; 159, 187193.Google Scholar
76. Aagaard, K, Ma, J, Antony, KM, et al. The placenta harbors a unique microbiome. Sci Transl Med. 2014; 6, 237ra65.Google Scholar
77. Collado, MC, Rautava, S, Aakko, J, Isolauri, E, Salminen, S. Human gut colonisation may be initiated in utero by distinct microbial communities in the placenta and amniotic fluid. Sci Rep. 2016; 6, 23129.Google Scholar
78. Stout, MJ, Conlon, B, Landeau, M, et al. Identification of intracellular bacteria in the basal plate of the human placenta in term and preterm gestations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 208, 226227.Google Scholar
79. Han, YW, Shen, T, Chung, P, Buhimschi, IA, Buhimschi, CS. Uncultivated bacteria as etiologic agents of intra-amniotic inflammation leading to preterm birth. J Clin Microbiol. 2009; 47, 3847.Google Scholar
80. Doyle, RM, Harris, K, Kamiza, S, et al. Bacterial communities found in placental tissues are associated with severe chorioamnionitis and adverse birth outcomes. PLoS One. 2017; 12, e0180167.Google Scholar
81. Pettker, CM, Buhimschi, IA, Magloire, LK, et al. Value of placental microbial evaluation in diagnosing intra-amniotic infection. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109, 739749.Google Scholar
82. Antony, KM, Ma, J, Mitchell, KB, et al. The preterm placental microbiome varies in association with excess maternal gestational weight gain. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212, 653 e651616.Google Scholar
83. Cao, B, Stout, MJ, Lee, I, Mysorekar, IU. Placental microbiome and its role in preterm birth. Neoreviews. 2014; 15, e537e545.Google Scholar
84. Prince, AL, Ma, J, Kannan, PS, et al. The placental membrane microbiome is altered among subjects with spontaneous preterm birth with and without chorioamnionitis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 214, 627 e1627 e16.Google Scholar
85. Zheng, J, Xiao, X, Zhang, Q, et al. The placental microbiome varies in association with low birth weight in full-term neonates. Nutrients. 2015; 7, 69246937.Google Scholar
86. Zheng, J, Xiao, X, Zhang, Q, et al. The placental microbiota is altered among subjects with gestational diabetes mellitus: a pilot study. Front Physiol. 2017; 8, 675.Google Scholar
87. Perez-Munoz, ME, Arrieta, MC, Ramer-Tait, AE, Walter, J. A critical assessment of the ‘sterile womb’ and ‘in utero colonization’ hypotheses: implications for research on the pioneer infant microbiome. Microbiome. 2017; 5, 48.Google Scholar
88. Digiulio, DB, Callahan, BJ, McMurdie, PJ, et al. Temporal and spatial variation of the human microbiota during pregnancy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112, 1106011065.Google Scholar
89. Nuriel-Ohayon, M, Neuman, H, Koren, O. Microbial changes during pregnancy, birth, and infancy. Front Microbiol. 2016; 7, 1031.Google Scholar
90. Koren, O, Goodrich, JK, Cullender, TC, et al. Host remodeling of the gut microbiome and metabolic changes during pregnancy. Cell. 2012; 150, 470480.Google Scholar
91. Gomez de Aguero, M, Ganal-Vonarburg, SC, Fuhrer, T, et al. The maternal microbiota drives early postnatal innate immune development. Science. 2016; 351, 12961302.Google Scholar
92. Abrahamsson, TR, Wu, RY, Jenmalm, MC. Gut microbiota and allergy: the importance of the pregnancy period. Pediatr Res. 2015; 77, 214219.Google Scholar
93. Collado, MC, Isolauri, E, Laitinen, K, Salminen, S. Distinct composition of gut microbiota during pregnancy in overweight and normal-weight women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008; 88, 894899.Google Scholar
94. Gibson, GR, Hutkins, R, Sanders, ME, et al. Expert consensus document: the international scientific association for probiotics and prebiotics (isapp) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; 14, 491502.Google Scholar
95. Hill, C, Guarner, F, Reid, G, et al. Expert consensus document. The international scientific association for probiotics and prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol . 2014; 11, 506514.Google Scholar
96. Reid, G, Kumar, H, Khan, AI, et al. The case in favour of probiotics before, during and after pregnancy: insights from the first 1,500 days. Benef Microbes. 2016; 7, 353362.Google Scholar
97. Alfaleh, K, Anabrees, J. Probiotics for prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 4, CD005496.Google Scholar
98. Fiocchi, A, Pawankar, R, Cuello-Garcia, C, et al. World Allergy Organization-Mcmaster university guidelines for allergic disease prevention (GLAD-P): probiotics. World Allergy Organ J. 2015; 8, 4.Google Scholar
99. Cuello-Garcia, C, Fiocchi, A, Pawankar, R, et al. Prebiotics for the prevention of allergies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Exp Allergy. 2017; 47, 14681477.Google Scholar
100. Sohn, K, Underwood, MA. Prenatal and postnatal administration of prebiotics and probiotics. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017; 22, 284289.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Influence of perinatal determinants on the neonatal gut microbiota.

Figure 1

Fig. 2 Bacterial establishment in neonates and health consequences.