Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Dec 3.
Published in final edited form as: Annu Rev Public Health. 2021 Apr 1;42:277–292. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-012420-105020

Environmental Influences on the Human Microbiome and Implications for Noncommunicable Disease

Jiyoung Ahn 1,2, Richard B Hayes 1,2
PMCID: PMC8641399  NIHMSID: NIHMS1752229  PMID: 33798404

Abstract

The human microbiome contributes metabolic functions, protects against pathogens, educates the immune system, and through these basic functions, directly or indirectly, affects most of our physiologic functions. Here, we consider the human microbiome and its relationship to several major noncommunicable human conditions, including orodigestive tract cancers, neurologic diseases, diabetes, and obesity. We also highlight the scope of contextual macroenvironmental factors (toxicological and chemical environment, built environment, and socioeconomic environment) and individual microenvironmental factors (smoking, alcohol, and diet) that may push the microbiota toward less healthy or more healthy conditions, influencing the development of these diseases. Last, we highlight current uncertainties and challenges in the study of environmental influences on the human microbiome and implications for understanding noncommunicable disease, suggesting a research agenda to strengthen the scientific evidence base.

Keywords: human microbiome, interindividual variability, noncommunicable diseases, macroenvironment, microenvironment

1. INTRODUCTION

Substantial advances have accumulated in the past 10 years in understanding the role of the human microbiome in health and disease; this progress has been based largely on the transition from classic microbial culture-based assays to the use of high-throughput comprehensive microbiome characterization through targeted bacterial 16S rRNA (ribosomal RNA) sequencing, whole-genome shotgun sequencing, and, more recently, microbial transcriptomics and metabolomics. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Human Microbiome Project (47) and other international initiatives (40, 75) have provided resources, methods, and discoveries that link interactions between humans and their microbiomes to health-related outcomes (47, 74). These advances have also been greatly supported by the development of expanded microbial taxonomic databases, analytic bioinformatics pipelines, and novel statistical approaches for study of the microbiome’s relationship to health and disease. Decreasing sequencing cost and rapidly expanding sequencing technology further facilitated the development of relatively large-scale human and experimental studies, providing complementary insight on microbial determinants of disease in human populations and on the underlying mechanistic basis of disease. Human studies have been strengthened by the increased attention to microbiome-related sample collections in diverse populations, and experimental studies have advanced through the development of experimental animal models, including germ-free humanized mouse models.

Research is also advancing our understanding of the environment as a major driver of variability in the human microbiome. Evidence from 2018 shows in families that genetic ancestry or individual polymorphic variants have a minor role in gut microbiome composition (<2%), whereas over 20% of the variance in microbiome diversity can be inferred from shared environmental factors, such as those associated with diet and lifestyle (95). In this article, we first review research on the human microbiome and its relationship to several (classically considered) noncommunicable human conditions, including orodigestive tract cancers, neurologic diseases, diabetes, and obesity. Then, we highlight the scope of known and suspected environmental factors that may push the microbiota toward less healthy or more healthy conditions, influencing the development of these diseases. We consider the environment in the broad sense, involving the contextual social and built environment and environmental toxicants, and with respect to individual behaviors, including smoking, alcohol, and dietary intake (see Figure 1). Last, we highlight current uncertainties and challenges in the study of environmental influences on the human microbiome and implications for understanding the microbial basis of noncommunicable disease, suggesting a research agenda to strengthen the scientific evidence base.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

The effect of the environment on human health is a complex set of interactions between multiple exposures that, alone or more commonly interdependently, affect various structures and functions of the microbiome. This figure illustrates how environmental exposures have a direct impact on the human microbiome, implicated in human health and diseases, including orodigestive tract cancers, neurologic diseases, diabetes, and obesity. These environmental exposures are influenced by and interrelated with the macroenvironment, including the toxicological and chemical environment, built environment, and social environment, as well as the microenvironment, including smoking, alcohol, and dietary factors. Although external environmental impacts are illustrated, individual factors, such as age, sex, and genes, also interact with and eventually determine exposure, dose, and any subsequent response and effect.

2. THE HUMAN MICROBIOME AND ITS INTERINDIVIDUAL VARIABILITY

The human microbiome is composed of bacteria, archaea, viruses, and eukaryotic fungal microbes that reside in and on our bodies. These microbial cells that colonize the human body, including the mouth and gut, are at least as abundant as our somatic cells and certainly contain far more genes than our human genome. An estimated 500–1,000 species of microbiota exist in the human body at any one time (127), although the number of unique genotypes could be orders of magnitude greater than this estimate (61). Each bacterial strain has a genome containing hundreds of genes, offering substantially more genetic diversity and hence flexibility than the human genome. These microbes and their microbial molecular functions have tremendous potential to impact our physiology, both in health and in disease (45).

The human microbiome, to maintain symbiotic relationships within the body, contributes metabolic functions, protects against pathogens, and trains and develops the immune system, and, through these basic functions, directly or indirectly affects most of our physiologic functions. People tend to possess a core microbiome, sharing common microbiome members of microbial species (45). However, different people harbor very different collections of microbes with substantially varying densities even among conserved taxa. This significant interindividual variability between persons is a potential source for differential susceptibility to disease.

3. THE MICROBIOME IMPLICATION FOR NONCOMMUNICABLE DISEASES

3.1. Orodigestive Tract Cancers

Microbes induce at least 60% of human orodigestive tract cancers (81), suggesting the tremendous potential of controlling microbe-related processes for orodigestive tract cancer prevention and treatment (13). Epidemiological studies consistently report the association between oral diseases and risk of orodigestive tract cancers, including cancers of the head and neck, esophagus, stomach, and pancreas. Because oral diseases have an important microbiologic basis, these observations have led to the hypothesis that the oral microbiome is related to the development of orodigestive cancer (4). Case-control studies nested within large population-based cohort studies found that the prediagnostic oral microbiome, assessed using mouth wash samples, is associated with subsequent development of orodigestive tract cancers of the head and neck (3, 43), esophagus (87) and pancreas (34). Several studies have also pointed specifically to a link between gut microbiome Fusobacterium and other species and colon cancer (5, 54, 116) and between the gut microbiome and inflammatory bowel disease (47) and colorectal adenoma (85).

Microbial-derived signals modulate numerous hallmarks of cancer through diverse mechanisms. In general, bacteria cannot directly induce cancer; the process is commonly accompanied by chronic inflammation and requires independent mutations in oncogenic signaling pathways (131). Studies further indicate (9, 89) that the cross talk between the microbiome and the host is critical to orodigestive tract oncogenesis by regulating innate and adaptive immune function in the tumor microenvironment (27). A bacteria–cancer model proposes that gram-negative bacteria promote carcinogenesis, as the lipopolysaccharide bacterial outer membrane provides the immunogenic stimulus for innate immune system response via Toll-like pattern recognition receptors, leading to genetic mutations caused by nuclear transcription factor NF-κB protumorigenic cytokine release, immune cell recruitment, and reactive oxygen release (131). Thus, a microbial role in shaping of the tumor immune microenvironment is of great potential importance in the pathogenesis of cancer, particularly of the orodigestive tract.

3.2. Neurologic Diseases

The gut and the central nervous system interact through the gut–brain axis, modulating central nervous system function, including affective-like behavior, cognitive performance, fatigue, and sleep. Research indicates that the gut microbiome, through influence on this gut–brain axis, may play a role in certain neuropsychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders (37, 97), altering behavior and potentially affecting the onset and/or severity of nervous system disorders. Germ-free mice and mice treated with antibiotics display a host of neuroimmune dysfunction and behavioral deficits (37). The gut microbiome has been linked, largely in preclinical models, to disorders of the brain, including anxiety, depression, and epilepsy, as well as autism spectrum disorder (104). In humans, evidence for interplay between gastrointestinal pathology and neuropsychiatric conditions has been reported in conditions such as anxiety, depression, and autism (124); however, causality remains unproven. Uncovering mechanisms that are utilized by the microbiome to mediate gut–brain connections may provide novel opportunities to target therapies to the gut in order to prevent and treat neurologic disorders.

3.3. Diabetes

A substantial body of literature has provided evidence for the role of gut microbiota in the etiology of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes (47). A 2020 review (39) summarized more than 40 published human studies. For example, in prediabetics, Zhou et al. (143) showed that molecular signatures based on the gut microbiome and inflammation and immune markers predicted for the onset of type 2 diabetes. Two seminal studies (51, 90) reported that gut microbiome profiles differ between type 2 diabetes patients and nondiabetic controls. A subsequent study (138) showed that gut microbiota in type 2 diabetic patients mediates the therapeutic effects of metformin, which is used for diabetes control. Zeevi et al. (142) developed personalized diets for optimizing blood glucose level in type 2 diabetes patients, with consideration for personalized dietary habits, physical activity, and gut microbiota. The researchers then showed in a blinded randomized controlled dietary intervention trial that application of this algorithm led to improved postprandial glucose responses. The current challenge is to replicate the precise components of the gut microbiome (39), which drive this heterogeneous, multifactorial, multiorgan disease.

3.4. Obesity

The prevalence of obesity has increased on a global scale over the past several decades, leading to premature death (2, 12) and many noncommunicable diseases (134). Although the fundamental cause of obesity is an imbalance between energy intake and expenditure related to physical activity linked to work and home environments, gut microbial composition (57) is a well-established factor for weight gain, along with other mechanisms, such as genetic variation (62) and epigenetic regulation (133). Experiments in germ-free mice colonized with gut microbiota transferred from wild-type mice (10), obese mice (128), or obese humans (92) have demonstrated that the microbiome plays a critical role in weight gain and adiposity in this test system, implicating gut microbes in the establishment of the obese phenotype. These experimental findings lead to the question of whether the microbial composition of the gut confers susceptibility to weight gain in humans, whether genetically determined (58) or diet induced (44, 70, 125). An early report in a small sample of humans (59) was consistent with findings in mice that the obese state is associated with an increase in the relative abundance of the Firmicutes phylum and a decrease in the relative abundance of the Bacteroidetes phylum. However, studies in humans have not corroborated this specific pattern: Some studies have observed a decrease in Bacteroidetes (but not an increase in Firmicutes) associated with obesity (7, 126), whereas others have observed the opposite (18, 100) or have not observed either of these phylum-level associations with body-mass index (BMI) (26, 35, 64, 122). In addition, studies have identified different genus- and species-level taxa associated with BMI or obesity (86, 132). Future downstream experimentation in animal models and humans can establish whether these candidate taxa play an etiologic role in obesity and, if so, suggest interventions for obesity prevention and treatment. Because of the potential to modify bacterial communities through various therapies (e.g., probiotics, prebiotics, antibiotics), the microbiome is an enticing candidate to target for the prevention and treatment of obesity.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINANTS OF THE HUMAN MICROBIOME

4.1. Macroenvironment

4.1.1. Toxicological and chemical environment.

The orodigestive tract and the respiratory system are major pathways for entry and processing of environmental toxicants in the human body. The rich metabolic repertoire of the human microbiome in these organ systems has a broad capacity for transformation of xenobiotic chemicals, sometimes opposite of the host patterns of biotransformation (1, 52). While oxidation and conjugation for excretion are typical of host metabolic enzymes, the microbial enzymatic reactions involve mainly reduction and hydrolysis (111, 136) and demethylation to generate carbon sources for further growth and division (113). Environmental arsenic speciation is related to cardiovascular disease and other health effects; evidence suggests that the methylation capacity of the microbiome resident in the orodigestive tract may influence these toxicities (16). Immobilization of metals, such as cadmium and lead by a gut Lactobacillus, may impact metal toxicities (20). Certain gut bacteria express azoreductase enzymes to metabolize potentially mutagenic azo compounds (141). Environmentally persistent chemicals from personal care products, such as triclocarban (3,4,4,9-trichlorocarbanilide, or TCC) and triclosan [5-chloro-2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenol, or TCS], are ubiquitous and linked to potential shifts in the microbiome in rodents (42). Microbial metabolism of chemicals including endocrine disruptors by gut microbiota can be accompanied by microbial dysbiosis: a change in the microbial community structure, the induction of specific bacterial genes, and altered microbial transformation of molecules (82, 94). In addition, endocrine disruptors can be absorbed and transported to the liver, where they are conjugated and excreted back into the gut through bile secretion for further microbial metabolism (129). Enzymes such as azoreductases, esterases, methylases, thiolases, lipases, nitroreductases, β-glucuronidases, sulfatases, and β-lyases are also reported to be involved in the microbial metabolism of environmental chemicals (82, 94, 129).

4.1.2. Built environment and emerging hypothesis.

The built environment comprises all structures built by humans, including our homes, workplaces, schools, and vehicles (36). Relying largely on microbial culture and other classic microbiologic techniques, investigators recognize that numerous microbial pathogens may be present in the built environment. For example, bacterial pathogens such as Mycobacterium tuberculosis, fungal pathogens such as Aspergillus fumigatus, and pathogenic viruses such as rhinovirus and influenza virus, and more recently severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can be transmitted by direct inhalation in the built environment. Other pathogens, such as Clostridium difficile and Enterococcus faecalis, as well as norovirus and influenza virus, can be transmitted to humans through skin or mucus contact owing to fomite transfer from surfaces. In addition to direct microbial transmission, microbial metabolic products in the built environment may also be implicated in human health, including bacterial and fungal toxins, allergenic components of the cellular wall, and microbial-derived volatile organic compounds (15, 53). Indoor air and surfaces are associated with dust and microbial chemical products. Increased relative humidity in the environment results in an increase in microbial metabolites in dust and on surfaces. Indoor dampness and moldy conditions (for example, visible mold and mold odor) have been associated with many different disease states, but associations between the composition and concentration of microorganisms and their metabolites in the built environment and disease remain elusive. With the application of targeted bacterial 16S rRNA sequencing and whole-genome shotgun sequencing, researchers have gained a fuller appreciation of the complexity of the microbial ecology of the built environment, including the large diversity of culturable and nonculturable agents. Recognizing that the composition of microbial DNA sequences in an environmental sample may be composed of significant nonviable residue (30), environmental microbial-associated DNA exhibits a rich complexity reflective of human microbial sources, with a particularly strong relationship between the indoor built environment and human-derived microbial sources (103).

The concept of the hygiene hypothesis, which suggests that improved hygiene is possibly linked to the rise in autoimmune conditions, is adaptable to the concept of beneficial microbial exposure (28). Lax et al. (56) examined the correlative relationships between the human microbiome and the microbiome of the built environment, focusing on home environments and mapping the sharing of bacteria between occupants and their homes. This investigation demonstrated that the majority of bacteria associated with the surfaces had a significant probability of having originated from the occupants of that home. Exposure to a complex microbial community in house dust has been inversely associated with the likelihood of developing asthma (29). In another study, children who were exposed to household dust from homes immediately adjacent to a farming environment and who were actively working on the farm presented with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of developing asthma compared with children who were not exposed to farming environments (112). In summary, there is growing evidence of an interrelationship between the built environment, our microbiome, and health, yet much work is needed to understand the ecology and evolution of microorganisms in the built environment and human health.

Other notable hypotheses related to the built environment have emerged. One that is gaining currency in the literature is the rewilding hypothesis, which suggests that changes to urban green spaces that return them to a more natural state have the potential to change the microbiota in the environment and subsequently in human populations. Studies in humans and animals demonstrated that rewilding may influence microbiome and host immune responses (101, 140). Among other environmental factors, work from 2018 suggests that inhalational exposure to particulate matter air pollution alters the composition of the gut microbiome (71). Also, daylight exposure has been shown to modulate household dust bacterial communities, which may also implicate sunlight and UV radiation in human microbiome composition, for example bacterial communities on the skin (33). Climate change and extreme heat could also prompt physiological changes that might favor certain microbiota in the ambient environment, in food or within the body. Furthermore, in addressing the challenges of bringing together the multitude of microbiota with the myriad of established and emerging exposures, untargeted evaluations and discovery that couple bacterial metagenomics with environmental exposomics (130) may be one approach as part of a forward-looking research agenda.

4.1.3. Socioeconomic environment.

Low socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with multiple health-related behaviors, such as reduced access to medical and dental care (6), increased engagement in unhealthy behaviors such as smoking and alcohol dependency (66), and decreased engagement in positive health behaviors such as healthy eating and exercise. Low-SES status is associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality (105) and higher incidence of some of the health conditions previously mentioned in this review, such as obesity, diabetes, and cancer.

The role of microbiota in mediating these relationships between SES and health is under study (94). Many characteristics associated with low-SES neighborhoods and lifestyles (e.g., processed foods, sedentary lifestyle, psychosocial stress, exposure to pollutants and endocrine disrupters) are also associated with reduced gut microbial diversity (19). Studies have examined differences in microbial composition between high- and low-SES populations. In the United States, higher SES was associated with greater alpha diversity and population abundance of particular microbes in the gut microbiota (69). In other research, distinct differences in microbial composition were found between the gut microbiota of low-income children in Bangladesh and upper- to middle-class American children of the same age (60). Better understanding of the mediating relationship of the microbiome in SES-related disease susceptibilities will require integrative study that includes investigation of exposures at the community and individual levels. The built environment is one component under such consideration.

4.2. Microenvironment: Specific Environmental Exposures

4.2.1. Smoking.

Cigarette smoke is a source of numerous toxicants (135), which come into direct contact with oral and upper respiratory bacteria; these toxicants can perturb the microbial ecology via antibiotic effects, oxygen deprivation, or other potential mechanisms (63). Loss of beneficial oral species due to smoking can lead to pathogen colonization and ultimately to disease; this contention is strongly supported by the well-established role of smoking in the onset and progression of microbially dependent periodontitis (76). Investigations in our lab (139) found decreased diversity in overall oral microbiome composition in current smokers and a lower relative abundance of the phylum Proteobacteria (4.6%) compared with never smokers (11.7%) (false discovery rate q = 5.2 × 10−7). The current smokers had decreased microbial abundance of genes associated with microbial aerobic metabolism pathways, including the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle and oxidative phosphorylation, and increased abundance of glycolysis and other oxygen-independent carbohydrate metabolism pathways. Other pathways depleted in current smokers were certain xenobiotic biodegradation pathways relating to toluene, nitrotoluene, styrene, chlorocyclohexane, and chlorobenzene degradation and cytochrome P450 xenobiotic metabolism. Conversely, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) and xylene degradation were enriched in current smokers. These chemicals are components of cigarette smoke (93), and thus alterations in the oral community’s ability to degrade these substances may have toxic consequences for the host. Aside from creating an anaerobic, acidic, and/or selectively toxic environment, smoking is also known to have prominent effects on human immunity (110), which can in turn influence the host’s ability to stave off colonization by pathogens. In summary, increasing evidence indicates that smoking influences overall oral microbiome community composition and the abundance of many taxa; smoking may promote an anaerobic oral environment and a bacterial community with reduced xenobiotic degradation capabilities.

Observational and interventional studies (98) also suggest decreased diversity in the composition of the intestinal microbiome in smokers, generally demonstrating increases in Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes phyla and Clostridium, Bacteroides, and Prevotella genera and decreases in Actinobacteria and Firmicutes phyla and Bifidobacteria and Lactococcus genera. Mechanisms that may explain the effects of smoking on the intestinal microbiome include oxidative stress enhancement, alterations of intestinal tight junctions and intestinal mucin composition, and changes in acid–base balance (98). Some smoking-induced alterations of the intestinal microbiome resemble those demonstrated in conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease and obesity. Further studies should be performed to investigate this connection. Smoking has an effect on the intestinal microbiome and is suggested to alter its composition. This interaction between smoking and the gut microbiome may contribute to the development of intestinal and systemic diseases.

4.2.2. Alcohol.

Alcohol intake may impact the human oral microbiome in several ways: First, oral bacteria and fungi metabolize alcohol and dietary sugars to carcinogenic acetaldehyde (67, 73), interact with cigarette smoke condensate (102), produce carcinogenic nitrosamines (55), and experimentally promote oral carcinogenesis (78). The oral microbiota has a more potent ability to produce acetaldehyde from ethanol in smokers, both in vitro and in vivo (68, 96). In vitro and animal studies also point to possible mechanisms by which oral microbiota contribute to oral carcinogenesis, including inhibition of apoptosis, activation of cell proliferation, promotion of cellular invasion, induction of chronic inflammation (80, 84), and cooperation of bacteria and fungi in oral polymicrobial communities (41). Second, alcohol may yield direct cytotoxic effects on bacteria (46). Animal studies showed that 20% alcohol intake increases colonization by Streptococcus mutans (50) and dramatically decreases the number of detectable bacterial species in the oral biofilms of rats (48). In human studies, drinking red wine was associated with reduced species richness and a reduction in certain anaerobic bacteria in sub- and supragingival plaque (106), while excessive co-use of tobacco and alcohol was associated with reduced species richness and decreased abundance of Neisseria, Aggregatibacter, and Fusobacteria in oral mucosa biofilms (121). In addition to its direct effects, alcohol may indirectly impact the oral microbiota (31, 65, 99, 119) through disturbing the host defense system (77, 83, 114, 115), subsequently resulting in host-mediated periodontitis (11, 88). Large population-based studies have demonstrated that at least one standard drink per day increases periodontitis risk by 15–27% (88, 120) and links to poor oral health (49). Evidence shows that the oral microbiome is closely tied to oral health status (21, 117).

Alcohol and the gut microbiome have been studied largely in the context of heavy alcohol use, which may alter intestinal barrier function leading to gut leakiness, the production of proinflammatory pathogenic microbial products, and disturbed liver metabolic pathways (32). Studies in heavy users of alcohol and cirrhotics show that the relative abundance of bacteria from the phylum Bacteroidetes decreases as those from the phylum Proteobacteria increase and that individuals with cirrhosis exhibit a unique increase in Fusobacteria (17, 72). While heavy use of alcohol is related to intestinal dysbiosis, red wine, a rich source of dietary polyphenols, may, in moderation, favorably alter the gastrointestinal microbiota community composition. Red wine polyphenol significantly increases the abundance of Proteobacteria, Fusobacteria, Firmicutes, and Bacteroidetes, whereas gin consumption significantly decreases these same bacterial phyla (91).

4.2.3. Dietary factors.

The Western diet is characterized by the consumption of high fat, high sugar, high levels of red and processed meat, high levels of refined grains, and a lower level of fiber intake (22). Many studies have linked the Western diet to inflammation, diabetes, cardiovascular risks, obesity, metabolic syndrome (144), and cancer (8, 14). While a Western diet has a broad physiologic impact, influencing many different cell types such as adipocytes, immune cells, and endocrine cells, this diet is also strongly linked to shifts in the microbiome (79), characterized by lower microbial diversity and species richness (38) and an increase of the phyla Firmicutes and a decrease in Bacteroidetes (58). On a genus level, a Western diet shows a decrease in Bifidobacteria and Lactobacilli, while being high in Enterobacteria (107).

Fiber intake, in particular, is an appealing modifiable dietary factor, given its postulated beneficial biologic effects. Several studies have shown that fiber may be protective against conditions such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, colon cancer, and obesity (25, 108). Fiber speeds colonic transit and may decrease exposure of colonic epithelial cells to ingested carcinogens. In addition, fiber undergoes fermentation by the microbiota to yield short-chain fatty acid end products, such as butyrate, which is essential for colon energy metabolism and epithelial proliferation and, in mouse models, exhibits tumor-suppressive activity through histone deacetylase inhibition (23). Consequently, there has been growing interest in understanding the impact of dietary fiber on gut microbiota composition, which may ultimately affect one’s risk of cancer and other diseases. High-fiber diets are associated with higher gastrointestinal microbial richness and diversity and, in particular, are linked to a greater abundance of Prevotella and Treponema, as well as decreases in inflammatory signaling, protection against obesity, and possible decreases in the presence of colorectal cancer (109). Although short-term dietary intervention trials have demonstrated that different amounts of fiber intake can significantly alter microbiota composition in a span of a few weeks (79, 118), few studies in humans have evaluated the effect of long-term dietary habits of fiber intake on the gut microbiota (137).

5. SYNTHESIS: THE MICROBIOME, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND HEALTH

Research is advancing on the relationship in human populations between the environment, in a broad sense, and microbiome composition. Advances have also been made in identifying microbial components related to a variety of noncommunicable diseases and conditions. Building on this base, investigators are beginning to investigate more comprehensively the noncommunicable disease outcomes in relation to the interplay between the environment and the microbiome, with consideration of the role of the microbiome as both a target and a mediator of environmental exposure. Each of these three elements of an environmental science of the human microbiome and health are individually complex, presenting challenges for their integration. Environmental factors are often complex; the multitude of environmental factors to consider, let alone the ever-expanding understanding of the microbiome, make it difficult to grasp the full picture of how the external environment plays a causal role in disease incidence and mortality. In real-life settings, these factors often interact and are dynamic over time. Chemical toxicants frequently present in mixtures, as is the case, for example, with cosmetics and endocrine disruptors. Furthermore, exposures may vary throughout the life course as may age-dependent risks, conceptualized as windows of susceptibility. Owing to this complexity, it remains profoundly challenging to determine the microbial characteristics that directly or indirectly influence human health and disease.

New approaches will be needed to fully evaluate existing and as yet unknown factors that may influence the microbiome and human health. Prospective cohort studies are a mainstay of research on the environment and human health, particularly because this study design is important in establishing the natural temporal sequence of cause and effect, which is often difficult to disentangle in cross-sectional or retrospective research. Oral wash collections that are useful for oral microbiome assessment have been a component of cohort research for several decades; however, prospective collection of stool samples is only recently being developed. Similarly, collections for analyzing the human microbiome at other body sites and longitudinal collections of serial samples are only recently coming to a scale needed for epidemiologic research. Large population-based cohorts, which incorporate diverse racial, socioeconomic, and geographic groups with stool and oral microbiome specimens, are needed. Advances are also being made in experimental animal studies, with the development of germ-free (123) and humanized animal models, as well as simple animal models (24), such as zebrafish, Drosophila Melanogaster, and Caenorhabditis elegans. Also, advances in sample collection, identification, and extraction, in sequencing samples, and in data analysis have moved forward rapidly through initiatives such as the Human Microbiome Project (47) and the International Human Microbiome Standards project (http://www.microbiome-standards.org/index.php). Furthermore, the environment and the microbiome influence health status multidimensionally, which reinforces the need to integrate other ‘omics, including metabolomics, transcriptomics, genomics, and immunomics. Relevant data integration tools and pipelines need to be developed.

In conclusion, this review has highlighted many of the factors in the environment that have associations with noncommunicable disease by influencing the human microbiome. We are clearly in an era when complex interactions, upstream causal factors, and multiple pathways of causation must be considered. Applying the results of these studies will be in the realm of individual modification of environmental factors, potentially involving microbial control, and in the realm of public policy, which is often more efficient for achieving changes that improve health. The challenge for microbiome science is to use observational epidemiology, exposure science, toxicology, and mechanistic studies to produce the best evidence possible for the betterment of population health.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Preparation of this article was supported in part by National Institutes of Health grants R01 CA159036, P20 CA252728, and P30 CA008748.

Footnotes

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

LITERATURE CITED

  • 1.Abdelsalam NA, Ramadan AT, ElRakaiby MT, Aziz RK. 2020. Toxicomicrobiomics: the human microbiome versus pharmaceutical, dietary, and environmental xenobiotics. Front. Pharmacol 11:390. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Adams KF, Schatzkin A, Harris TB, Kipnis V, Mouw T, et al. 2006. Overweight, obesity, and mortality in a large prospective cohort of persons 50 to 71 years old. N. Engl. J. Med 355:763–78 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Agalliu I, Gapstur S, Chen Z, Wang T, Anderson RL, et al. 2016. Associations of oral α-, β-, and γ-human papillomavirus types with risk of incident head and neck cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2:599–606 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ahn J, Chen CY, Hayes RB. 2012. Oral microbiome and oral and gastrointestinal cancer risk. Cancer Causes Control 23:399–404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ahn J, Sinha R, Pei Z, Dominianni C, Wu J, et al. 2013. Human gut microbiome and risk for colorectal cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst 105:1907–11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Anderson NB, Armstead CA. 1995. Toward understanding the association of socioeconomic status and health: a new challenge for the biopsychosocial approach. Psychosom. Med 57:213–25 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Armougom F, Henry M, Vialettes B, Raccah D, Raoult D. 2009. Monitoring bacterial community of human gut microbiota reveals an increase in Lactobacillus in obese patients and Methanogens in anorexic patients. PLOS ONE 4:e7125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Aune D, Chan DS, Lau R, Vieira R, Greenwood DC, et al. 2011. Dietary fibre, whole grains, and risk of colorectal cancer: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. BMJ 343:d6617. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Aykut B, Pushalkar S, Chen R, Li Q, Abengozar R, et al. 2019. The fungal mycobiome promotes pancreatic oncogenesis via MBL activation. Nature 574:264–67 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bäckhed F, Ding H, Wang T, Hooper LV, Koh GY, et al. 2004. The gut microbiota as an environmental factor that regulates fat storage. PNAS 101:15718–23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bartold PM, Van Dyke TE. 2013. Periodontitis: a host-mediated disruption of microbial homeostasis. Unlearning learned concepts. Periodontol. 2000 62:203–17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Berrington de Gonzalez A, Hartge P, Cerhan JR, Flint AJ, Hannan L, et al. 2010. Body-mass index and mortality among 1.46 million white adults. N. Engl. J. Med 363:2211–19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Blaser MJ. 2008. Understanding microbe-induced cancers. Cancer Prev. Res 1:15–20 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bouvard V, Loomis D, Guyton KZ, Grosse Y, Ghissassi FE, et al. 2015. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncol. 16:1599–600 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bush RK, Portnoy JM, Saxon A, Terr AI, Wood RA. 2006. The medical effects of mold exposure. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol 117:326–33 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Calatayud M, Xiong C, Du Laing G, Raber G, Francesconi K, van de Wiele T. 2018. Salivary and gut microbiomes play a significant role in in vitro oral bioaccessibility, biotransformation, and intestinal absorption of arsenic from food. Environ. Sci. Technol 52:14422–35 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chen Y, Yang F, Lu H, Wang B, Chen Y, et al. 2011. Characterization of fecal microbial communities in patients with liver cirrhosis. Hepatology 54:562–72 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Collado MC, Isolauri E, Laitinen K, Salminen S. 2008. Distinct composition of gut microbiota during pregnancy in overweight and normal-weight women. Am. J. Clin. Nutr 88:894–99 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Conlon MA, Bird AR. 2015. The impact of diet and lifestyle on gut microbiota and human health. Nutrients 7:17–44 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Daisley BA, Monachese M, Trinder M, Bisanz JE, Chmiel JA, et al. 2019. Immobilization of cadmium and lead by Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1 mitigates apical-to-basolateral heavy metal translocation in a Caco-2 model of the intestinal epithelium. Gut Microbes 10:321–33 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Darveau RP. 2010. Periodontitis: a polymicrobial disruption of host homeostasis. Nat. Rev. Microbiol 8:481–90 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Dong TS, Gupta A. 2019. Influence of early life, diet, and the environment on the microbiome. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol 17:231–42 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Donohoe DR, Holley D, Collins LB, Montgomery SA, Whitmore AC, et al. 2014. A gnotobiotic mouse model demonstrates that dietary fiber protects against colorectal tumorigenesis in a microbiota- and butyrate-dependent manner. Cancer Discov. 4:1387–97 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Douglas AE. 2019. Simple animal models for microbiome research. Nat. Rev. Microbiol 17:764–75 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dreher ML. 2018. Whole fruits and fruit fiber emerging health effects. Nutrients 10:1833. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Duncan SH, Lobley GE, Holtrop G, Ince J, Johnstone AM, et al. 2008. Human colonic microbiota associated with diet, obesity and weight loss. Int. J. Obes 32:1720–24 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Dzutsev A, Badger JH, Perez-Chanona E, Roy S, Salcedo R, et al. 2017. Microbes and cancer. Annu. Rev. Immunol 35:199–228 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Eder W, von Mutius E. 2004. Hygiene hypothesis and endotoxin: What is the evidence? Curr. Opin. Allergy Clin. Immunol 4:113–17 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ege MJ, Mayer M, Normand A-C, Genuneit J, Cookson WOCM, et al. 2011. Exposure to environmental microorganisms and childhood asthma. N. Engl. J. Med 364:701–9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Emerson JB, Adams RI, Román CMB, Brooks B, Coil DA, et al. 2017. Schrödinger’s microbes: tools for distinguishing the living from the dead in microbial ecosystems. Microbiome 5:86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Enberg N, Alho H, Loimaranta V, Lenander-Lumikari M. 2001. Saliva flow rate, amylase activity, and protein and electrolyte concentrations in saliva after acute alcohol consumption. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod 92:292–98 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Engen PA, Green SJ, Voigt RM, Forsyth CB, Keshavarzian A. 2015. The gastrointestinal microbiome: alcohol effects on the composition of intestinal microbiota. Alcohol Res. 37:223–36 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Fahimipour AK, Hartmann EM, Siemens A, Kline J, Levin DA, et al. 2018. Daylight exposure modulates bacterial communities associated with household dust. Microbiome 6:175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Fan X, Alekseyenko V, Wu J, Peters BA, Jacobs E, et al. 2018. Human oral microbiota and prospective risk for pancreatic cancer: a population-based nested case-control study. Gut 67(1):120–27 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Finucane MM, Sharpton TJ, Laurent TJ, Pollard KS. 2014. A taxonomic signature of obesity in the microbiome? Getting to the guts of the matter. PLOS ONE 9:e84689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gilbert JA, Stephens B. 2018. Microbiology of the built environment. Nat. Rev. Microbiol 16:661–70 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Griffiths JA, Mazmanian SK. 2018. Emerging evidence linking the gut microbiome to neurologic disorders. Genome Med. 10:98. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Gupta VK, Paul S, Dutta C. 2017. Geography, ethnicity or subsistence-specific variations in human microbiome composition and diversity. Front. Microbiol 8:1162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gurung M, Li Z, You H, Rodrigues R, Jump DB, et al. 2020. Role of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes pathophysiology. EBioMedicine 51:102590. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hadrich D 2018. Microbiome research is becoming the key to better understanding health and nutrition. Front. Genet 9:212. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hajishengallis G, Lamont RJ. 2016. Dancing with the stars: how choreographed bacterial interactions dictate nososymbiocity and give rise to keystone pathogens, accessory pathogens, and pathobionts. Trends Microbiol. 24:477–89 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Halden RU. 2016. Lessons learned from probing for impacts of triclosan and triclocarban on human microbiomes. mSphere 1:e00089–16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hayes RB, Ahn J, Fan X, Peters BA, Ma Y, et al. 2018. Association of oral microbiome with risk for incident head and neck squamous cell cancer. JAMA Oncol. 4:358–65 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hildebrandt MA, Hoffmann C, Sherrill-Mix SA, Keilbaugh SA, Hamady M, et al. 2009. High-fat diet determines the composition of the murine gut microbiome independently of obesity. Gastroenterology 137:1716–24.e1–2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Human Microbiome Proj. Consort. 2012. Human Microbiome Project: structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature 486:207–14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ingram LO. 1990. Ethanol tolerance in bacteria. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol 9:305–19 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Integr. HMP (iHMP) Res. Netw. Consort.. 2019. The Integrative Human Microbiome Project. Nature 569:641–48 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Jabbour Z, do Nascimento C, dos Santos Kotake BG, El-Hakim M, Henderson JE, de Albuquerque RF Jr.. 2013. Assessing the oral microbiota of healthy and alcohol-treated rats using whole-genome DNA probes from human bacteria. Arch. Oral Biol 58:317–23 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Jansson L 2008. Association between alcohol consumption and dental health. J. Clin. Periodontol 35:379–84 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kantorski KZ, de Souza DM, Yujra VQ, Junqueira JC, Jorge AOC, da Rocha RF. 2007. Effect of an alcoholic diet on dental caries and on Streptococcus of the mutans group. Study in rats. Braz. Oral Res 21:101–5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Karlsson FH, Tremaroli V, Nookaew I, Bergström G, Behre CJ, et al. 2013. Gut metagenome in European women with normal, impaired and diabetic glucose control. Nature 498:99–103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Koppel N, Maini Rekdal V, Balskus EP. 2017. Chemical transformation of xenobiotics by the human gut microbiota. Science 356:eaag2770. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Korpi A, Pasanen A-L, Pasanen P. 1998. Volatile compounds originating from mixed microbial cultures on building materials under various humidity conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol 64:2914–19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kostic AD, Chun E, Robertson L, Glickman JN, Gallini CA, et al. 2013. Fusobacterium nucleatum potentiates intestinal tumorigenesis and modulates the tumor-immune microenvironment. Cell Host Microbe 14:207–15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Krogh P, Hald B, Holmstrup P. 1987. Possible mycological etiology of oral mucosal cancer: catalytic potential of infecting Candida albicans and other yeasts in production of N-nitrosobenzylmethylamine. Carcinogenesis 8:1543–48 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Lax S, Smith DP, Hampton-Marcell J, Owens SM, Handley KM, et al. 2014. Longitudinal analysis of microbial interaction between humans and the indoor environment. Science 345:1048–52 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Ley RE. 2010. Obesity and the human microbiome. Curr. Opin. Gastroenterol 26:5–11 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Ley RE, Bäckhed F, Turnbaugh P, Lozupone CA, Knight RD, Gordon JI. 2005. Obesity alters gut microbial ecology. PNAS 102:11070–75 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Ley RE, Turnbaugh PJ, Klein S, Gordon JI. 2006. Microbial ecology: human gut microbes associated with obesity. Nature 444:1022–23 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Lin A, Bik EM, Costello EK, Dethlefsen L, Haque R, et al. 2013. Distinct distal gut microbiome diversity and composition in healthy children from Bangladesh and the United States. PLOS ONE 8:e53838. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Locey KJ, Lennon JT. 2016. Scaling laws predict global microbial diversity. PNAS 113:5970–75 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Lu Y, Loos RJ. 2013. Obesity genomics: assessing the transferability of susceptibility loci across diverse populations. Genome Med. 5:55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Macgregor ID. 1989. Effects of smoking on oral ecology. A review of the literature. Clin. Prev. Dent 11:3–7 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Mai V, McCrary QM, Sinha R, Glei M. 2009. Associations between dietary habits and body mass index with gut microbiota composition and fecal water genotoxicity: an observational study in African American and Caucasian American volunteers. Nutr. J 8:49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Maier H, Born IA, Mall G. 1988. Effect of chronic ethanol and nicotine consumption on the function and morphology of the salivary glands. Klinische Wochenschr. 66(Suppl 11):140–50 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Marmot M 2006. Smoking and inequalities. Lancet 368:341–42 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Marttila E, Bowyer P, Sanglard D, Uittamo J, Kaihovaara P, et al. 2013. Fermentative 2-carbon metabolism produces carcinogenic levels of acetaldehyde in Candida albicans. Mol. Oral Microbiol 28:281–91 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Marttila E, Uittamo J, Rusanen P, Lindqvist C, Salaspuro M, Rautemaa R. 2013. Acetaldehyde production and microbial colonization in oral squamous cell carcinoma and oral lichenoid disease. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol 116:61–68 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Miller GE, Engen PA, Gillevet PM, Shaikh M, Sikaroodi M, et al. 2016. Lower neighborhood socioeconomic status associated with reduced diversity of the colonic microbiota in healthy adults. PLOS ONE 11:e0148952. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Murphy EF, Cotter PD, Healy S, Marques TM, O’Sullivan O, et al. 2010. Composition and energy harvesting capacity of the gut microbiota: relationship to diet, obesity and time in mouse models. Gut 59:1635–42 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Mutlu EA, Comba IY, Cho T, Engen PA, Yazıcı C, et al. 2018. Inhalational exposure to particulate matter air pollution alters the composition of the gut microbiome. Environ. Pollut 240:817–30 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Mutlu EA, Gillevet PM, Rangwala H, Sikaroodi M, Naqvi A, et al. 2012. Colonic microbiome is altered in alcoholism. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol 302:G966–78 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Nieminen MT, Salaspuro M. 2018. Local acetaldehyde—an essential role in alcohol-related upper gastrointestinal tract carcinogenesis. Cancers 10:11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.NIH (Natl. Inst. Health) Hum. Microbiome Portf. Anal. Team. 2019. A review of 10 years of human microbiome research activities at the US National Institutes of Health, fiscal years 2007–2016. Microbiome 7:31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Nishijima S, Suda W, Oshima K, Kim S-W, Hirose Y, et al. 2016. The gut microbiome of healthy Japanese and its microbial and functional uniqueness. DNA Res. 23:125–33 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Nociti FH Jr., Casati MZ, Duarte PM. 2015. Current perspective of the impact of smoking on the progression and treatment of periodontitis. Periodontol. 2000 67:187–210 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Ogden GR, Wight AJ, Rice P. 1999. Effect of alcohol on the oral mucosa assessed by quantitative cytomorphometry. J. Oral Pathol. Med 28:216–20 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.O’Grady JF, Reade PC. 1992. Candida albicans as a promoter of oral mucosal neoplasia. Carcinogenesis 13:783–86 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.O’Keefe SJ, Li JV, Lahti L, Ou J, Carbonero F, et al. 2015. Fat, fibre and cancer risk in African Americans and rural Africans. Nat. Commun 6:6342. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Olsen I, Yilmaz O. 2019. Possible role of Porphyromonas gingivalis in orodigestive cancers. J. Oral Microbiol 11:1563410. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Parkin DM. 2006. The global health burden of infection-associated cancers in the year 2002. Int. J. Cancer 118:3030–44 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Patterson AD, Turnbaugh PJ. 2014. Microbial determinants of biochemical individuality and their impact on toxicology and pharmacology. Cell Metab. 20:761–68 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Pepersack T, Fuss M, Otero J, Bergmann P, Valsamis J, Corvilain J. 1992. Longitudinal study of bone metabolism after ethanol withdrawal in alcoholic patients. J. Bone Miner. Res 7:383–87 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Perera M, Al-Hebshi NN, Speicher DJ, Perera I, Johnson NW. 2016. Emerging role of bacteria in oral carcinogenesis: a review with special reference to perio-pathogenic bacteria. J. Oral Microbiol 8:32762. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Peters BA, Dominianni C, Shapiro JA, Church TR, Wu J, et al. 2016. The gut microbiome in conventional and serrated precursors of colorectal cancer. Microbiome 4(1):69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Peters BA, Shapiro JA, Church TR, Miller G, Trinh-Shevrin C, et al. 2018. A taxonomic signature of obesity in a large study of American adults. Sci. Rep 8:9749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Peters BA, Wu J, Pei Z, Yang L, Purdue MP, et al. 2017. Oral microbiome composition reflects prospective risk for esophageal cancers. Cancer Res. 77(23):6777–87 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Pitiphat W, Merchant AT, Rimm EB, Joshipura KJ. 2003. Alcohol consumption increases periodontitis risk. J. Dent. Res 82:509–13 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Pushalkar S, Hundeyin M, Daley D, Zambirinis CP, Kurz E, et al. 2018. The pancreatic cancer microbiome promotes oncogenesis by induction of innate and adaptive immune suppression. Cancer Discov. 8:403–16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Qin J, Li Y, Cai Z, Li S, Zhu J, et al. 2012. A metagenome-wide association study of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes. Nature 490:55–60 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Queipo-Ortuño MI, Boto-Ordóñez M, Murri M, Gomez-Zumaquero JM, Clemente-Postigo M, et al. 2012. Influence of red wine polyphenols and ethanol on the gut microbiota ecology and biochemical biomarkers. Am. J. Clin. Nutr 95:1323–34 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Ridaura VK, Faith JJ, Rey FE, Cheng J, Duncan AE, et al. 2013. Gut microbiota from twins discordant for obesity modulate metabolism in mice. Science 341:1241214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Rodgman A, Perfetti TA. 2013. The alphabetical index to components identified in tobacco, tobacco smoke, and tobacco substitute smoke. In The Chemical Components of Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke, ed. Rodgman A, Perfetti TA, pp. 1713–2064. New York: CRC Press. 2nd ed. [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Rook GAW, Raison CL, Lowry CA. 2014. Microbial ‘old friends’, immunoregulation and socioeconomic status. Clin. Exp. Immunol 177:1–12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Rothschild D, Weissbrod O, Barkan E, Kurilshikov A, Korem T, et al. 2018. Environment dominates over host genetics in shaping human gut microbiota. Nature 555:210–15 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Salaspuro V, Salaspuro M. 2004. Synergistic effect of alcohol drinking and smoking on in vivo acetaldehyde concentration in saliva. Int. J. Cancer 111:480–83 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Sampson TR, Mazmanian SK. 2015. Control of brain development, function, and behavior by the microbiome. Cell Host Microbe 17:565–76 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Savin Z, Kivity S, Yonath H, Yehuda S. 2018. Smoking and the intestinal microbiome. Arch. Microbiol 200:677–84 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Scannapieco FA. 1994. Saliva-bacterium interactions in oral microbial ecology. Crit. Rev. Oral Biol. Med 5:203–48 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Schwiertz A, Taras D, Schäfer K, Beijer S, Bos NA, et al. 2010. Microbiota and SCFA in lean and overweight healthy subjects. Obesity 18:190–95 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Selway CA, Mills JG, Weinstein P, Skelly C, Yadav S, et al. 2020. Transfer of environmental microbes to the skin and respiratory tract of humans after urban green space exposure. Environ. Int 145:106084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Semlali A, Killer K, Alanazi H, Chmielewski W, Rouabhia M. 2014. Cigarette smoke condensate increases C. albicans adhesion, growth, biofilm formation, and EAP1, HWP1 and SAP2 gene expression. BMC Microbiol. 14:61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Sharma A, Richardson M, Cralle L, Stamper CE, Maestre JP, et al. 2019. Longitudinal homogenization of the microbiome between both occupants and the built environment in a cohort of United States Air Force Cadets. Microbiome 7:70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Sharon G, Sampson TR, Geschwind DH, Mazmanian SK. 2016. The central nervous system and the gut microbiome. Cell 167:915–32 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Signorello LB, Cohen SS, Williams DR, Munro HM, Hargreaves MK, Blot WJ. 2014. Socioeconomic status, race, and mortality: a prospective cohort study. Am. J. Public Health 104:e98–107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Signoretto C, Bianchi F, Burlacchini G, Sivieri F, Spratt D, Canepari P. 2010. Drinking habits are associated with changes in the dental plaque microbial community. J. Clin. Microbiol 48:347–56 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Singh RK, Chang H-W, Yan D, Lee KM, Ucmak D, et al. 2017. Influence of diet on the gut microbiome and implications for human health. J. Transl. Med 15:73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Soliman GA. 2019. Dietary fiber, atherosclerosis, and cardiovascular disease. Nutrients 11:1155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Sonnenburg ED, Sonnenburg JL. 2014. Starving our microbial self: the deleterious consequences of a diet deficient in microbiota-accessible carbohydrates. Cell Metab. 20:779–86 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Sopori M 2002. Effects of cigarette smoke on the immune system. Nat. Rev. Immunol 2:372–77 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Spanogiannopoulos P, Bess EN, Carmody RN, Turnbaugh PJ. 2016. The microbial pharmacists within us: a metagenomic view of xenobiotic metabolism. Nat. Rev. Microbiol 14:273–87 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Stein MM, Hrusch CL, Gozdz J, Igartua C, Pivniouk V, et al. 2016. Innate immunity and asthma risk in Amish and Hutterite farm children. N. Engl. J. Med 375:411–21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Sutton D, Butler AM, Nadin L, Murray M. 1997. Role of CYP3A4 in human hepatic diltiazem N-demethylation: inhibition of CYP3A4 activity by oxidized diltiazem metabolites. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther 282:294–300 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Szabo G 1999. Consequences of alcohol consumption on host defence. Alcohol Alcohol. 34:830–41 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Szabo G, Mandrekar P, Girouard L, Catalano D. 1996. Regulation of human monocyte functions by acute ethanol treatment: decreased tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interleukin-1 beta and elevated interleukin-10, and transforming growth factor-beta production. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res 20:900–7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Tahara T, Yamamoto E, Suzuki H, Maruyama R, Chung W, et al. 2014. Fusobacterium in colonic flora and molecular features of colorectal carcinoma. Cancer Res. 74:1311–18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Takeshita T, Kageyama S, Furuta M, Tsuboi H, Takeuchi K, et al. 2016. Bacterial diversity in saliva and oral health-related conditions: the Hisayama Study. Sci. Rep 6:22164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Tap J, Furet J-P, Bensaada M, Philippe C, Roth H, et al. 2015. Gut microbiota richness promotes its stability upon increased dietary fibre intake in healthy adults. Environ. Microbiol 17:4954–64 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Tenovuo J 1998. Antimicrobial function of human saliva—how important is it for oral health? Acta Odontol. Scand 56:250–56 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Tezal M, Grossi SG, Ho AW, Genco RJ. 2004. Alcohol consumption and periodontal disease—The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J. Clin. Periodontol 31:484–88 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Thomas AM, Gleber-Netto FO, Fernandes GR, Amorim M, Barbosa LF, et al. 2014. Alcohol and tobacco consumption affects bacterial richness in oral cavity mucosa biofilms. BMC Microbiol. 14:250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Tims S, Derom C, Jonkers DM, Vlietinck R, Saris WH, et al. 2013. Microbiota conservation and BMI signatures in adult monozygotic twins. ISME J. 7:707–17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Tlaskalova-Hogenova H, Vannucci L, Klimesova K, Stepankova R, Krizan J, Kverka M. 2014. Microbiome and colorectal carcinoma: insights from germ-free and conventional animal models. Cancer J. 20:217–24 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Tremlett H, Bauer KC, Appel-Cresswell S, Finlay BB, Waubant E. 2017. The gut microbiome in human neurological disease: a review. Ann. Neurol 81:369–82 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Turnbaugh PJ, Bäckhed F, Fulton L, Gordon JI. 2008. Diet-induced obesity is linked to marked but reversible alterations in the mouse distal gut microbiome. Cell Host Microbe 3:213–23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Turnbaugh PJ, Hamady M, Yatsunenko T, Cantarel BL, Duncan A, et al. 2009. A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins. Nature 457:480–84 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Hamady M, Fraser-Liggett CM, Knight R, Gordon JI. 2007. The Human Microbiome Project. Nature 449:804–10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Mahowald MA, Magrini V, Mardis ER, Gordon JI. 2006. An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature 444:1027–31 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Velmurugan G, Ramprasath T, Gilles M, Swaminathan K, Ramasamy S. 2017. Gut microbiota, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and the diabetes epidemic. Trends Endocrinol. Metab 28:612–25 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Vermeulen R, Schymanski EL, Barabási AL, Miller GW. 2020. The exposome and health: where chemistry meets biology. Science 367:392–96 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Vogelmann R, Amieva MR. 2007. The role of bacterial pathogens in cancer. Curr. Opin. Microbiol 10:76–81 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Walters WA, Xu Z, Knight R. 2014. Meta-analyses of human gut microbes associated with obesity and IBD. FEBS Lett. 588:4223–33 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Waterland RA. 2014. Epigenetic mechanisms affecting regulation of energy balance: many questions, few answers. Annu. Rev. Nutr 34:337–55 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.WHO (World Health Organ.). 2000. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation. Tech. Rep. Ser 894, World Health Organ., Geneva. https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/obesity/WHO_TRS_894/en/ [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.WHO (World Health Organ.). 2012. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Lyon, France: IARC [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Wilson ID, Nicholson JK. 2017. Gut microbiome interactions with drug metabolism, efficacy, and toxicity. Transl. Res 179:204–22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Wu GD, Chen J, Hoffmann C, Bittinger K, Chen Y-Y, et al. 2011. Linking long-term dietary patterns with gut microbial enterotypes. Science 334:105–8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Wu H, Esteve E, Tremaroli V, Khan MT, Caesar R, et al. 2017. Metformin alters the gut microbiome of individuals with treatment-naive type 2 diabetes, contributing to the therapeutic effects of the drug. Nat. Med 23:850–58 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Wu J, Peters BA, Dominianni C, Zhang Y, Pei Z, et al. 2016. Cigarette smoking and the oral microbiome in a large study of American adults. ISME J. 10:2435–46 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Yeung F, Chen Y-H, Lin J-D, Leung JM, McCauley C, et al. 2020. Altered immunity of laboratory mice in the natural environment is associated with fungal colonization. Cell Host Microbe 27:809–22.e6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Zahran SA, Ali-Tammam M, Hashem AM, Aziz RK, Ali AE. 2019. Azoreductase activity of dye-decolorizing bacteria isolated from the human gut microbiota. Sci. Rep 9:5508. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Zeevi D, Korem T, Zmora N, Israeli D, Rothschild D, et al. 2015. Personalized nutrition by prediction of glycemic responses. Cell 163:1079–94 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Zhou W, Sailani MR, Contrepois K, Zhou Y, Ahadi S, et al. 2019. Longitudinal multi-omics of host-microbe dynamics in prediabetes. Nature 569:663–71 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Zinöcker MK, Lindseth IA. 2018. The Western diet-microbiome-host interaction and its role in metabolic disease. Nutrients 10:365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES