4.4 Review

Arsenic and the gastrointestinal tract microbiome

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages 136-159

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1758-2229.12814

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NASA [NNX09AW41G, NNX09AW41G] Funding Source: Medline
  2. National Science Foundation [MCB-1714556] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA215784] Funding Source: Medline
  4. Montana Agricultural Experiment Station [911310] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Arsenic is a toxin, ranking first on the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Environmental Protection Agency Priority List of Hazardous Substances. Chronic exposure increases the risk of a broad range of human illnesses, most notably cancer; however, there is significant variability in arsenic-induced disease among exposed individuals. Human genetics is a known component, but it alone cannot account for the large inter-individual variability in the presentation of arsenicosis symptoms. Each part of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) may be considered as a unique environment with characteristic pH, oxygen concentration, and microbiome. Given the well-established arsenic redox transformation activities of microorganisms, it is reasonable to imagine how the GIT microbiome composition variability among individuals could play a significant role in determining the fate, mobility and toxicity of arsenic, whether inhaled or ingested. This is a relatively new field of research that would benefit from early dialogue aimed at summarizing what is known and identifying reasonable research targets and concepts. Herein, we strive to initiate this dialogue by reviewing known aspects of microbe-arsenic interactions and placing it in the context of potential for influencing host exposure and health risks. We finish by considering future experimental approaches that might be of value.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available