ArticleScientific reports2026
Capecitabine combined with fecal microbiota transplantation prevents colorectal cancer progression through correction of microbial dysbiosis and immune regulation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The significant economic burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) necessitates the development of innovative therapeutic approaches. Interest in the gut microbiota’s role in CRC has increased. Capecitabine, as a chemotherapy, may disrupt the balance of the intestinal microbiota. This study investigated the anticancer effects of capecitabine combined with fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in a CRC mouse model caused by azoxymethane and dextran sodium sulfate. FMT was achieved with fecal microbiota from healthy mice through enema. Capecitabine decreased the number and diameter of cancer foci in CRC mice, while FMT supplementation had a more noticeable impact, indicated by increased body weight and survival rate. Capecitabine significantly reduced the abundance of pathogenic bacteria in mice with CRC, such as Bacteroides, Enterorhabdus, Monoglobus, Rodentibacter, uncultured_rumen_bacterium, Turicibacter, and Streptococcus. The supplementation of FMT more effectively reversed the gut microbiota dysbiosis in CRC mice, as demonstrated by the ACE and Chao 1 indices, PCoA analysis, and enhanced normal biological pathways. Microbial dysbiosis induced immunological dysfunction in CRC mice, indicated by abnormal immune cell recruitment and excessive cytokine production. Capecitabine treatment reduced immune cell infiltration, including CD3+ T cells, CD4+ T cells, and CD49b+ NK cells, as chemotherapy often suppresses the immune system. The supplement of FMT increased the proportion of CD4+ T cells, CD49b+ NK cells, CD8+ T cells, and LY6G+ neutrophils, indicating improved immune responses against CRC. Moreover, capecitabine therapy alone reduced the overexpression of IL1a, IL6, IL12a, IL12b, IL17, IL22, FOXP3, STAT3, IFN-γ, TNF-α, TGF-β, GZMA, CXCR4, OPN, PD-1 and PD-L1. FMT supplementation resulted in a higher immune response to CRC, as it had a greater inhibitory effect on the overexpression of inflammatory cytokines and enhanced the production of IL10, IFN-γ, and CXCR4. These cytokines were positively correlated with Azospirillum_sp._47_25, Romboutsia, Lactococcus, Rikenella_sp._Marseille_P3215 and Turicibacter and negatively correlated with Parabacteroids, unclassified_Oscillospiraceae, Marvinbryantia, unclassified_Clostridia_vadinBB60_group, unclassified_Erysipelatoclostridiaceae, A2, Roseburia, Rikenellaceae_RC9_gut_group, Acetatifactor and unclassified_Clostridia. The combination of capecitabine and FMT is more effective at preventing CRC than capecitabine alone, as it reverses gut microbial abnormalities and boosts immune responses to CRC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.