ArticleFrontiers in microbiomes2022
Being friendly to the skin microbiome: Experimental assessment.
Article in Frontiers in microbiomes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Skin Microbiome and Bioactive Compounds: Mechanisms of Modulation, Dysbiosis, and Dermatological Implications.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Unforeseen current and future benefits of uncommon yeast: the Metschnikowia genus.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2024Review
- A New Generation of Postbiotics for Skin and Scalp: In Situ Production of Lipid Metabolites byMicroorganisms · 2024Review
- Recreating Human Skin In Vitro: Should the Microbiota Be Taken into Account?International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- DistinctFrontiers in microbiomes · 2024Article
- Phage lysins for intestinal microbiome modulation: current challenges and enabling techniques.Gut microbesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Both academia and dermatological and cosmetic industries have acknowledged that healthy skin microbiota contribute to overall skin integrity and well-being. This implies that formulations developed for personal care (skin, scalp, hair etc) or (medical and cosmetic) treatment need to be compatible with microbiota conservation or possibly even improvement. The various chemical and biological components and mixtures thereof intended for direct application to the skin should not extensively affect the qualitative and quantitative composition of the skin microbiota. A compound should promote beneficial microbes and inhibit pathogens. Compounds but also final products could be considered at least theoretically "microbiome friendly" while in some cases changes to the microbiota may even be considered beneficial. An important hurdle lies in the practical and methodological approaches to be used for defining microbiota inertia of compounds and formulations. Clear guidelines for assessing microbiome friendliness are lacking. We propose three testing concepts that may help to define microbiome friendliness based on the assessment of minimal microbiota perturbation and possibly elimination of potential pathogens. Methods to prove microbiome friendliness should ultimately be based upon (metagenomic rather than amplicon-based) next generation sequencing of naive versus compound- or final product-exposed skin microbiota
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.