The gut microbiota is often mentioned as a “forgotten organ” or “metabolic organ”, given its profound impact on host physiology, metabolism, immune function and nutrition. A healthy diet is undoubtedly a major contributor for promoting a “good” microbial community that turns out to be crucial for a fine-tuned symbiotic relationship with the host. Both microbial-derived components and produced metabolites elicit the activation of downstream cascades capable to modulate both local and systemic immune responses. A balance between host and gut microbiota is crucial to keep a healthy intestinal barrier and an optimal immune homeostasis, thus contributing to prevent disease occurrence. How dietary habits can impact gut microbiota and, ultimately, host immunity in health and disease has been the subject of intense study, especially with regard to metabolic diseases. Only recently, these links have started to be explored in relation to lung diseases. The objective of this review is to address the current knowledge on how diet affects gut microbiota and how it acts on lung function. As the immune system seems to be the key player in the cross-talk between diet, gut microbiota and the lungs, involved immune interactions are discussed. There are key nutrients that, when present in our diet, help in gut homeostasis and lead to a healthier lifestyle, even ameliorating chronic diseases. Thus, with this review we hope to incite the scientific community interest to use diet as a valuable non-pharmacological addition to lung diseases management. First, we talk about the intestinal microbiota and interactions through the intestinal barrier for a better understanding of the following sections, which are the main focus of this article: the way diet impacts the intestinal microbiota and the immune interactions of the gut–lung axis that can explain the impact of diet, a key modifiable factor influencing the gut microbiota in several lung diseases.

The concept of heterogeneity among obese individuals in their risk for developing metabolic dysfunction and associated complications has been recognized for decades. At the origin of the heterogeneity idea is the acknowledgement that individuals with central obesity are more prone to developing type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease than those with peripheral obesity. There have been attempts to categorize subjects according to their metabolic health and degree of obesity giving rise to different obese and non-obese phenotypes that include metabolically unhealthy normal-weight (MUHNW), metabolically healthy obese (MHO), and metabolically unhealthy obese (MUO). Individuals belonging to the MHO phenotype are obese according to their body mass index although exhibiting fewer or none metabolic anomalies such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and/or unfavorable inflammatory and fribinolytic profiles. However, some authors claim that MHO is only transient in nature. Additionally, the phenotype categorization is controversial as it lacks standardized definitions possibly blurring the distinction between obesity phenotypes and confounding the associations with health outcomes. To add to the discussion, the factors underlying the origin or protection from metabolic deterioration and cardiometabolic risk for these subclasses are being intensely investigated and several hypotheses have been put forward. In the present review, we compare the different definitions of obesity phenotypes and present several possible factors underlying them (adipose tissue distribution and cellularity, contaminant accumulation on the adipose tissue, dysbiosis and metabolic endotoxemia imposing on to the endocannabinoid tone and inflammasome, and nutrient intake and dietary patterns) having inflammatory activation at the center.

Autologous fat grafting is widely used for soft-tissue augmentation and replacement in reconstructive and aesthetic surgery providing a biocompatible, natural and inexpensive method. Multiple approaches have been developed in the past years, varying in the location of adipose tissue donor-sites, use of wetting solutions, harvesting, processing and placing techniques. Despite many advances in this subject, the lack of standardization in the protocols and the unpredictability of the resorption of the grafted tissue pose a significant limitation for graft retention and subsequent filling. In this review, we discuss several approaches and methods described over the last years concerning the harvesting of autologous fat grafts. We focus on contents such as the best donor-site, differences between existing harvesting techniques (namely tissue resection, hand aspiration or liposuction techniques), recommended harvesting cannula diameters, pressure application and volume of wetting solution injected prior aspiration. Results and comparisons between methods tend to vary according to the outcome measured, thus posing a limitation to pinpoint the most efficient methods to apply in fat grafting. Additionally, the lack of a standard assay to determine viability or volume augmentation of fat grafting remains another limitation to obtain universally accepted grafting procedures and protocols.