AIMS: Slow transit constipation (STC) is a common functional gastrointestinal disorder characterized by intestinal motility dysfunction, barrier damage, hormonal imbalance and gut microbiota dysbiosis. High-concentration (50%) lactulose is routinely used for STC treatment, while Bacillus pumilus acts as a probiotic to regulate intestinal flora. However, the synergistic efficacy and mechanism of low-dose lactulose combined with Bacillus pumilus NJAUYBN1-7 for STC remain unclear. This study aimed to clarify the therapeutic effects and underlying mechanisms of this combined therapy and compare its efficacy with conventional high-dose lactulose monotherapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: A loperamide-induced mouse STC model was applied for efficacy evaluation. Compared with 50% lactulose monotherapy, 30% lactulose combined with vegetative cells of Bacillus pumilus NJAUYBN1-7 (2.0 × 109 CFU·mL-1) significantly relieved constipation symptoms and shortened the first defecation time to 174.5 ± 9.14 min. Meanwhile, fecal output, fecal water content (52.08 ± 5.33%) and intestinal transit rate (49.38 ± 2.46%) were markedly increased. Mechanistically, the combination restored the SCF/Kit pathway, significantly upregulated the expression of intestinal barrier-related proteins (P < 0.05), normalized gastrointestinal hormone concentrations, alleviated colonic inflammation by reducing pro-inflammatory cytokine levels (P < 0.05), and remodeled gut microbiota homeostasis by altering the relative abundance of key enteric bacteria. CONCLUSIONS: 30% lactulose combined with Bacillus pumilus NJAUYBN1-7 exhibits superior STC therapeutic effects compared with 50% lactulose monotherapy. This synergistic regimen improves intestinal motility, repairs intestinal barrier, relieves inflammation and optimizes intestinal microenvironment via multi-target regulation. This study provides novel mechanistic insights and validates the clinical translational potential of this safe and efficient combined strategy for STC treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sun et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: