4.5 Article

Effects of single and combined toxic exposures on the gut microbiome: Current knowledge and future directions

期刊

TOXICOLOGY LETTERS
卷 312, 期 -, 页码 72-97

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2019.04.014

关键词

Gut microbiota; Chemical mixtures; Environmental pollutants; Toxicity; Host health

资金

  1. Special Research Account of the University of Crete (ELKE) [4920, 3963]
  2. Spin-Off ToxPLus SA
  3. Institute for Translational Medicine and Biotechnologies Biomedical Science & Technology Park at Sechenov University (Rus Project Excellence 5-100)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human populations are chronically exposed to mixtures of toxic chemicals. Predicting the health effects of these mixtures require a large amount of information on the mode of action of their components. Xenobiotic metabolism by bacteria inhabiting the gastrointestinal tract has a major influence on human health. Our review aims to explore the literature for studies looking to characterize the different modes of action and outcomes of major chemical pollutants, and some components of cosmetics and food additives, on gut microbial communities in order to facilitate an estimation of their potential mixture effects. We identified good evidence that exposure to heavy metals, pesticides, nanoparticles, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins, furans, polychlorinated biphenyls, and non-caloric artificial sweeteners affect the gut microbiome and which is associated with the development of metabolic, malignant, inflammatory, or immune diseases. Answering the question 'Who is there?' is not sufficient to define the mode of action of a toxicant in predictive modeling of mixture effects. Therefore, we recommend that new studies focus to simulate real-life exposure to diverse chemicals (toxicants, cosmetic/food additives), including as mixtures, and which combine metagenomics, metatranscriptomics and metabolomic analytical methods achieving in that way a comprehensive evaluation of effects on human health.

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

4.5
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