4.8 Article

Environmental biodiversity, human microbiota, and allergy are interrelated

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1205624109

关键词

biodiversity benefits; hygiene hypothesis; microbial deprivation; civilization diseases

资金

  1. European Research Council [232826]
  2. European Commission [261357]
  3. Academy of Finland [131155, 138932]
  4. Helsinki University Hospital [8361]
  5. Juselius Foundation
  6. Liv och Halsa Foundation
  7. Academy of Finland (AKA) [138932, 138932] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rapidly declining biodiversity may be a contributing factor to another global megatrend-the rapidly increasing prevalence of allergies and other chronic inflammatory diseases among urban populations worldwide. According to the biodiversity hypothesis, reduced contact of people with natural environmental features and biodiversity may adversely affect the human commensal microbiota and its immunomodulatory capacity. Analyzing atopic sensitization (i.e., allergic disposition) in a random sample of adolescents living in a heterogeneous region of 100 x 150 km, we show that environmental biodiversity in the surroundings of the study subjects' homes influenced the composition of the bacterial classes on their skin. Compared with healthy individuals, atopic individuals had lower environmental biodiversity in the surroundings of their homes and significantly lower generic diversity of gammaproteobacteria on their skin. The functional role of the Gram-negative gammaproteobacteria is supported by in vitro measurements of expression of IL-10, a key anti-inflammatory cytokine in immunologic tolerance, in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. In healthy, but not in atopic, individuals, IL-10 expression was positively correlated with the abundance of the gammaproteobacterial genus Acinetobacter on the skin. These results raise fundamental questions about the consequences of biodiversity loss for both allergic conditions and public health in general.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据