对皮肤微生物群友好:实验评估

A. van Belkum, P. Lisotto, W. Pirovano, S. Mongiat, Amine Zorgani, M. Gempeler, R. Bongoni, E. Klaassens
{"title":"对皮肤微生物群友好:实验评估","authors":"A. van Belkum, P. Lisotto, W. Pirovano, S. Mongiat, Amine Zorgani, M. Gempeler, R. Bongoni, E. Klaassens","doi":"10.3389/frmbi.2022.1077151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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 in vivo, but preferably also including in vitro and ex vivo pre-screening methodologies to build an understanding of their consequences. As in many domains of microbiome research, the development of experimental process controls and internal standards, which are essentially lacking to date, should be taken as a future prerequisite. There is also a requirement from regulatory agencies to define and harmonize acceptance criteria.","PeriodicalId":73089,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in microbiomes","volume":"140 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Being friendly to the skin microbiome: Experimental assessment\",\"authors\":\"A. van Belkum, P. Lisotto, W. Pirovano, S. Mongiat, Amine Zorgani, M. Gempeler, R. Bongoni, E. Klaassens\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/frmbi.2022.1077151\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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 in vivo, but preferably also including in vitro and ex vivo pre-screening methodologies to build an understanding of their consequences. As in many domains of microbiome research, the development of experimental process controls and internal standards, which are essentially lacking to date, should be taken as a future prerequisite. There is also a requirement from regulatory agencies to define and harmonize acceptance criteria.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73089,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in microbiomes\",\"volume\":\"140 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in microbiomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/frmbi.2022.1077151\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in microbiomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frmbi.2022.1077151","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学术界和皮肤学和化妆品行业都承认,健康的皮肤微生物群有助于整体皮肤的完整性和福祉。这意味着为个人护理(皮肤、头皮、头发等)或(医疗和化妆品)治疗开发的配方需要与微生物群保护相容,甚至可能改善。用于直接施用于皮肤的各种化学和生物组分及其混合物不应广泛影响皮肤微生物群的定性和定量组成。一种化合物应该促进有益微生物和抑制病原体。化合物以及最终产物至少在理论上可以被认为是“微生物群友好的”,而在某些情况下,微生物群的变化甚至可能被认为是有益的。一个重要的障碍在于用于定义化合物和制剂的微生物群惯性的实际和方法学方法。目前还缺乏评估微生物群友好性的明确指导方针。我们提出了三个测试概念,这些概念可能有助于根据微生物群最小扰动的评估和潜在病原体的可能消除来定义微生物群友好性。证明微生物组友好性的方法最终应该基于(宏基因组而不是基于扩增子的)体内原始与化合物或最终产品暴露的皮肤微生物群的下一代测序,但最好也包括体外和离体预筛选方法,以建立对其后果的理解。正如微生物组研究的许多领域一样,实验过程控制和内部标准的发展,这是迄今为止本质上缺乏的,应该作为未来的先决条件。管理机构还要求定义和协调验收标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Being friendly to the skin microbiome: Experimental assessment
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 in vivo, but preferably also including in vitro and ex vivo pre-screening methodologies to build an understanding of their consequences. As in many domains of microbiome research, the development of experimental process controls and internal standards, which are essentially lacking to date, should be taken as a future prerequisite. There is also a requirement from regulatory agencies to define and harmonize acceptance criteria.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信