Skip to main content
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2024 Sep 9;23(12):3836–3846. doi: 10.1111/jocd.16557

Dermatological Health in the Light of Skin Microbiome Evolution

Diala Haykal 1,, Hugues Cartier 2, Brigitte Dréno 3
PMCID: PMC11626341  PMID: 39248208

ABSTRACT

Background

The complex ecosystem of the skin microbiome is essential for skin health by acting as a primary defense against infections, regulating immune responses, and maintaining barrier integrity. This literature review aims to consolidate existing information on the skin microbiome, focusing on its composition, functionality, importance, and its impact on skin aging.

Methods

An exhaustive exploration of scholarly literature was performed utilizing electronic databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate, focusing on studies published between 2011 and 2024. Keywords included “skin microbiome,” “skin microbiota,” and “aging skin.” Studies involving human subjects that focused on the skin microbiome's relationship with skin health were included. Out of 100 initially identified studies, 70 met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed.

Results

Studies showed that aging is associated with a reduction in the variety of microorganisms of the skin microbiome, leading to an increased susceptibility to skin conditions. Consequently, this underlines the interest in bacteriotherapy, mainly topical probiotics, to reinforce the skin microbiome in older adults, suggesting improvements in skin health and a reduction in age‐related skin conditions. Further exploration is needed into the microbiome's role in skin health and the development of innovative, microbe‐based skincare products. Biotherapeutic approaches, including the use of phages, endolysins, probiotics, prebiotics, postbiotics, and microbiome transplantation, can restore balance and enhance skin health. This article also addresses regulatory standards in the EU and the USA that ensure the safety and effectiveness of microbial skincare products.

Conclusion

This review underscores the need to advance research on the skin microbiome's role in cosmetic enhancements and tailored skincare solutions, highlighting a great interest in leveraging microbial communities for dermatological benefits.

Keywords: bacteriotherapy, dysbiosis, microorganisms, phages, probiotic, skin aging, skin conditions, skin microbiome, skin microbiota, skin transplantation

1. Introduction

Human skin, as big as 2 m2, is the largest organ. The skin microbiome, consisting of a wide range of microorganisms, has a crucial function in preserving skin health and balance. The skin microbiome has been significantly transformed by recent progress in sequencing technologies, leading to a profound enhancement in our comprehension of its composition, diversity, and function [1, 2]. The human skin microbiome is a diverse and ever‐changing ecosystem made up of a variety of microorganisms that live in different areas of the skin [2]. It is essential for skin health as it supports the skin's barrier function and immune system. The microbiome is formed in infancy and is shaped by genetics, environmental influences, and lifestyle decisions. Imbalance in the skin microbiota, known as dysbiosis, can result in a range of skin conditions such as infections, allergies, and autoimmune diseases [3]. Comprehending the structure and behavior of the skin microbiome is crucial for creating methods to enhance skin well‐being and address aging skin [4, 5]. Current research seeks to clarify the complex connection between the skin microbiome and host physiology, leading to new approaches in skincare and dermatology. The objective of this literature review is to consolidate existing information on the skin microbiome, with a specific emphasis on its composition, functionality, importance, and impact on skin aging. This piece addresses the evolution of skin microbiome from early life until old age, casting light on the most influential factors in its changes. Aging skin microbiome undergoes several types of changes depending on external and internal factors such as physiological age, lifestyle, diseases, exposome, etc. These changes verify the results of different therapeutic strategies. These therapies often go through some regulatory principles which require further improvement.

2. Methods

An exhaustive exploration of scholarly literature was performed utilizing electronic databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate. Relevant studies published between 2011 and 2024 were identified using keywords: “skin microbiome,” “skin microbiota,” and “aging skin.” Studies were included if they involved human subjects, focused on the skin microbiome and its relationship with skin health, and provided clear definitions and measurements of dermatological health. A total of 100 studies were initially identified through this search process. Out of the 100 identified studies, 12 duplicates were excluded, resulting in 88 studies that were screened based on their titles and abstracts. During this screening process, an additional six studies were excluded due to irrelevance with preliminary inclusion criteria. Subsequently, 82 studies were assessed for full‐text eligibility. Upon further review, 12 studies were excluded owing to divergence of their content from the main topic of the present study. Finally, 70 studies met the criteria for relevance with skin microbiome and skin wellness and were thus considered eligible for inclusion in the review (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Flowchart.

The included studies were categorized based on a holistic approach to the evolution of the skin microbiome. With this perspective in mind, the present review is composed of five sections, covering various aspects of skin microbiome and its impact on overall skin health, in addition to regulatory frameworks and future perspectives (Table 1).

TABLE 1.

Summary.

References Authors Year Findings Type of research
1 Eisenstein 2020 Describes the complex ecosystem of the skin microbiome and its importance for skin health Review
2 Grice et al. 2011 Explores the skin microbiome and its interactions with the human host Review
3 Skowron et al. 2021 Examines the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on skin microbiota composition Review
4 Smythe et al. 2023 Reviews research on skin microbiome and its effects on aging Review
5 Harris‐Tryon et al. 2022 Discusses the role of the microbiota in maintaining skin barrier function Review
6 Habeebuddin et al. 2022 Investigates the potential benefits of topical probiotics for balanced skin microbiota Review
7 Serghiou et al. 2023 Provides insights into recent research on early life skin microbiome Review
8 Scharschmidt et al. 2013 Explores the ecology, genomics, and therapeutic potential of the skin microbiome Review
9 Xu et al. 2019 Analyzes the relationship between acne, the skin microbiome, and antibiotic treatment Review
10 Moitinho‐Silva et al. 2022 Studies the association between host genetic factors and skin microbiota composition Observational study
11 Boxberger et al. 2021 Highlights the role of intrinsic and extrinsic factors in shaping the bacterial communities of skin microbiome Review
12 Yang et al. 2022 Summarizes recent advances in digital microfluidic‐based platforms in evaluating skin microbiome Review
13 Gallo et al. 2017 Discusses the role of the skin as an epithelial surface for microbial interaction Commentary
14 Callewaert et al. 2020 Examines how changes in lifestyle and living environment can impact the skin microbiome and skin health and disease in humans Review
15 Zhu et al. 2023 Analyzes the balance between health and disease in human skin bacterial microbiota Review
16 McCarthy et al. 2022 Investigates the altered skin and gut microbiome in hidradenitis suppurativa Observational study
17 Chambers et al. 2020 Reviews the impact of aging on skin barrier immunity Review
18 Baldwin et al. 2017 Discusses the importance of maintaining cutaneous microbiota harmony for skin health Review
19 Johnson et al. 2018 Explores new molecular targets to promote wound healing through the cutaneous microbiome Review
20 Demessant‐Flavigny et al. 2023 Reviews the role of Staphylococcus aureus in atopic dermatitis and skin microbiome dysbiosis Review
21 Dessinioti et al. 2024 Analyzes perspectives for treating acne through the microbiome Review
22 Myers et al. 2023 Identifies potential microbial features associated with skin aging Multi‐study analysis
23 Ratanapokasatit et al. 2022 Analyzes the skin interactome role in skin aging and skin health Review
24 Nakatsuji et al. 2021 Explores mechanisms for controlling skin immune function through the microbiome Review
25 Hurlow et al. 2011 Reviews the issue of dry skin in older adults Review
26 Jugé et al. 2018 Examines shifts in skin microbiota composition across aging in Western European women Research study
27 Dréno et al. 2016 Updates dermatologists on the healthy skin microbiome Review
28 Byrd et al. 2018 Provides a comprehensive overview of the human skin microbiome Review
29 Kano et al. 2013 Shows that fermented milk containing Bifidobacterium breve benefits skin condition in healthy adult women Clinical trial
30 Woo et al. 2024 Reviews the interaction between the microbiota and the skin barrier in aging skin Review
31 Sharma et al. 2016 Explores anti‐aging effects of probiotics on the skin Review
32 Dimarzio et al. 2008 Shows that topical application of bacterial sphingomyelinase increases skin‐ceramide levels in aged subjects Clinical trial
33 Notay et al. 2020 Analyzes the cosmetic improvement of facial wrinkles using topical Nitrosomonas eutropha Clinical trial
34 Weyrich et al. 2015 Examines associations between altered microbial communities and skin diseases Review
35 Rocha et al. 2018 Explores the relationship between skin barrier function and the microbiome in acne Review
36 Kang et al. 2009 Shows antimicrobial activity of enterocins against Propionibacterium acnes Experimental study
37 Lee et al. 2019 Provides a comprehensive review of the potential role of the microbiome in acne Review
38 Thio et al. 2018 Discusses the microbiome perspective in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis Review
39 França et al. 2021 Reviews the use of topical probiotics in dermatological therapy and skincare Review
40 Guéniche et al. 2006 Shows improvement in atopic dermatitis symptoms by Vitreoscilla filiformis bacterial extract Clinical trial
41 Guéniche et al. 2008 Demonstrates improvement in seborrheic dermatitis with Vitreoscilla filiformis biomass Clinical trial
42 Chen et al. 2013 Discusses current perspectives and future challenges in skin microbiome research Review
43 Carvalho et al. 2023 Reviews the impact of cosmetic products on the skin microbiota Review
44 Bouslimani et al. 2019 Analyzes the dynamics of skin chemistry and microbiome with the use of skincare products Observational Study
45 Wallen‐Russell et al. 2019 Explores the effects of everyday cosmetics on the skin microbiome using biodiversity as a measure Observational study
46 Ch'ng 2024 Shows the effectiveness of an emollient “plus” in rebalancing the skin microbiome for managing atopic dermatitis. Clinical trial
47 Sarasati et al. 2023 Investigates the potential of plant‐derived exosome‐like nanoparticles for biomedical and regenerative applications Experimental study
48 Bai et al. 2024 Examines clinical applications of exosomes in cosmetic dermatology Review
49 Ghasemian 2021 Explores the application of exosome‐derived mesenchymal stem cells in treating fungal diseases Experimental study
50 Dagnelie et al. 2020 Highlights the role of bacterial extracellular vesicles in inflammatory dermatoses Review
51 Hendricks et al. 2019 Discusses the knowns, unknowns, and emerging trends of skin bacterial transplants in atopic dermatitis Review
52 Natarelli et al. 2023 Explores the role of bacteriophages and the phageome in dermatology Review
53 Özal et al. 2022 Provides a systematic review of bacteriophages and endolysins for reducing microorganisms Systematic review
54 Castillo‐González et al. 2022 Discusses the therapeutic potential of bacteriotherapy with human skin commensals in atopic dermatitis Review
55 Dewi et al. 2023 Examines the possibilities of bacteriotherapy for skin aging and atopic dermatitis Review
56 Smirnova et al. 2023 Reviews new bacteriotherapy approaches for inflammatory skin diseases Review
57 Ito et al. 2022 Shows the effect of emollients containing vegetable‐derived lactobacillus in treating atopic dermatitis symptoms Review
58 Park et al. 2014 Studies the transfer of skin microbiota between dissimilar autologous microenvironments Clinical trial
59 Perin et al. 2019 Investigates the effects of human skin microbiota transplantation in models of atopic dermatitis Pilot study
60 Myles et al. 2016 Discusses regulatory aspects of probiotics and microbial products in skincare Experimental study
61 Wright et al. 2020 Reviews the role of regulatory agencies in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics Review
62 Yingling et al. 2000 Explores the evolving use of probiotics and postbiotics in cosmetics and their regulatory aspects Review
63 Arora et al. 2023 Analyzes the applications of machine learning and deep learning in microbiome research Review
64 Hernández et al. 2022 Reviews challenges and best practices in applying machine learning to microbiome research Review
65 Papoutsoglou et al. 2023 Highlights the potential of biosensors and AI in dermatology Review
66 Haykal 2024 Introduces biosensors and their applications Review
67 Bhalla et al. 2016 Explores the use of flexible and printable integrated biosensors for monitoring skin conditions Review
68 Wang et al. 2023 Discusses dermal tattoo biosensors and their potential applications Experimental study
69 Dhond et al. 2023 Reviews the impact of modern environments on skin microbiome, barrier integrity, and immune programming Review
70 Prescott et al. 2017 Highlights the role of modern environments on skin microbiome and health Review

3. Results

3.1. Skin Microbiome Composition

The skin microbiome consists mainly of bacteria, fungi, and viruses making up a wide range of microbial species. A single square centimeter contains up to one million microorganisms. The skin microbiome, consisting of fungi, viruses, archaea, and mites, starts forming at birth and experiences substantial transformations over human lifetime [6]. During birth, the skin is first inhabited by germs from the mother's microbiota and the nearby surroundings. Early colonization is affected by factors such as delivery method (vaginal birth or cesarean section), infant food (breastfed or formula‐fed), and antibiotic use. Infants delivered vaginally acquire their initial microbiota from their mothers' vaginal and fecal flora, fostering a microbial community that supports healthy immune and metabolic development. Conversely, cesarean‐delivered infants often have a microbiome more reflective of skin and hospital environments, which may predispose them to allergies, asthma, and obesity. The nature of an infant's diet also shapes their gut microbiome; breastfed infants generally harbor a microbiome rich in beneficial bacteria like Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium, supported by human milk oligosaccharides that promote a protective gut environment. Formula‐fed infants, however, tend to develop a more varied microbiota from an earlier age, which can impact immune function differently by potentially reducing the abundance of beneficial bacteria such as Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus, leading to an increased risk of allergies, asthma, and obesity due to less optimal development of the gut and skin immune systems [7, 8]. Additionally, antibiotic use during early life can disrupt these microbial communities, reducing diversity and depleting key bacterial populations which can have lasting effects on the child's health, increasing susceptibility to infections and possibly influencing lifelong health outcomes [9].

The skin microbiome changes as we get older due to genetic factors, environmental exposures, lifestyle choices, and physiological changes in the body as well. Genetic predispositions influence skin reactions and microbial resilience, while environmental factors like UV radiation and pollution can alter microbial habitats and introduce harmful species. Lifestyle choices, including diet and skincare routines, directly impact microbial balance; for example, high‐fat diets and harsh soaps can disrupt this balance, whereas nutrient‐rich foods and gentle skincare products support it [10]. Additionally, physiological changes such as decreased sebum production, thinner skin, and altered pH levels provide a different environment that affects microbial growth, potentially leading to skin conditions linked to aging. Hormonal changes throughout puberty can impact the skin's sebum production and microbial composition, resulting in disorders such as acne. During maturity, the microbiome reaches a stable state but remains susceptible to exposome and influences including food, hygiene habits, skincare products, and exposure to contaminants [11]. Consequently, imbalances in the skin microbiome have been associated with a range of skin disorders such as eczema, psoriasis, acne, and rosacea. It is essential to comprehend the evolution and alterations in the skin microbiome from infancy to old age to enhance skin health and address dermatological issues effectively [12].

3.2. Role of the Skin Microbiome in Dermatological Health

The common notion that human skin has an average surface area of 2 m2 fails to acknowledge the complexity of the skin, which includes approximately 5 million appendages, potentially elevating the total surface area to approximately 25 m2, making it the largest organ [13]. The 2–3 mm deep outer layer of the skin not only serves as an immunological barrier that protects the body from environmental factors, injuries, and infections, but also regulates temperature, prevents water loss, and facilitates vitamin D synthesis, highlighting the crucial role of the skin microbiome in maintaining overall skin health [2]. Skin health, in the field of dermatology within broad terms, refers to the optimal functioning and appearance of the skin, encompassing its protective barrier functions, temperature regulation, and support for overall bodily health. From a holistic approach, skin health is seen as the harmonious balance of all skin components, including the skin microbiome, immune system, and structural integrity, which work together to maintain the skin's resilience and its ability to protect against environmental stressors and infections. Accumulating evidence indicates that the skin microbiome has a vital function in preserving the balance of the skin and defending against harmful microorganisms. Commensal microorganisms engage in competition with potential pathogens for colonization sites and nutrients, thereby inhibiting the excessive growth of pathogenic species [14, 15]. Furthermore, the skin microbiome plays a role in controlling nearby immune reactions (innate immunity), impacting pathways related to inflammation and defense against microorganisms [3, 16]. The skin microbiome itself is integral to the modulation of these immune activities [17]. Commensal bacteria on the skin contribute to the education and regulation of the immune system including both innate and adaptative immunity, teaching immune cells to tolerate beneficial microbes while remaining vigilant against pathogens [18]. The imbalance of the skin microbiome has been linked to several dermatological conditions, such as acne vulgaris, atopic dermatitis (AD), psoriasis, wound infections, and skin aging [19, 20, 21, 22, 23].

3.3. Microbiome Diversity in Aging Skin: Impact on Aging Process and Dermatological Diseases Development

Research examining the relationship between aging skin and the skin microbiome has yielded insightful findings. This includes studying the impact of microbial metabolites, immune modulation, and tissue remodeling on age‐related changes in the skin [24]. To be specific, as the skin microenvironment changes by age, so does the skin microbial composition. To name a few of these changes, small blood vessels, sebaceous glands, and sweat glands shrink over time along with a decrease in nutrient supply [25]. In this regard, Jugé et al. [26] conducted a study revealing age‐related changes in microbial diversity, noting a decline with age and an increase in certain pathogenic species such as Proteobacteria and Corynebacterium spp. To investigate the impact of skin microbiome on different aging processes, Dréno et al. conducted a longitudinal investigation that explored the impact of chronological aging and photoaging on the skin microbiome, revealing distinct microbial signatures associated with different aging processes. They found that the skin microbiome changes significantly with age. This shift in microbiome composition is linked to decreased sebum production, thinner skin, and altered pH levels, creating a more favorable environment for pathogenic species and contributing to age‐related skin conditions. In younger individuals, there's a higher diversity of bacteria, including more Cutibacterium species, which thrive in oily skin. As skin ages, microbial diversity decreases, with an increase in species like Staphylococcus and Corynebacterium, linked to reduced sebaceous activity and immune changes. Photoaging further alters the microbiome, increasing species associated with dry, less resilient skin. These microbial shifts may contribute to the clinical signs of aging skin, such as dryness and reduced elasticity [27]. Furthermore, review articles by Byrd et al., Kano et al., and Woo et al. provided comprehensive overviews of the impact of the skin microbiome on age‐associated skin conditions and explored the effects of probiotic supplementation on the skin microbiome of elderly individuals, respectively [28, 29, 30]. Byrd, Belkaid, and Segre [28] refer to the diversity of microbial dermatological disease drivers in diabetic and obese elderly. Kano et al. [29] have referred to certain diets such as yogurt intake to have direct positive effect on adult females with chronic constipation and dry skin. Woo and Kim [30] point out that gut dysbiosis is directly involved in the skin microbiome and various dermatological conditions such as acne, eczema, rosacea, prurigo nodularis, and skin cancer. Collectively, these studies highlight the intricate interplay between aging skin and the skin microbiome, suggesting potential avenues for interventions to maintain skin health and mitigate age‐related skin changes. Other investigations conducted by Habeebuddin et al., Chambers et al., Sharma et al., Dimarzio et al., and Notay et al. shed light on the potential of topical probiotics to improve skin health and modify the skin microbiome among the elderly, thereby indicating the efficacy of therapeutic cosmetic treatments [6, 17, 31, 32, 33]. Their results suggest that a topical probiotic at a high concentration effectively reduces the severity of facial wrinkles in contrast to lower concentrations. Overall, these studies emphasize the dynamic relationship between aging skin and the skin microbiome, underscoring the importance of microbial dysbiosis in age‐related skin changes and highlighting avenues for further research and intervention development. Additionally, research by Weyrich et al. [34] focused on the role of the skin microbiome in age‐related inflammatory skin conditions, demonstrating dysbiosis and alterations in microbial metabolites in elderly individuals with dermatitis. Furthermore, several research investigated the direct relationship between skin microbiome dysbiosis and dermatological conditions such as rosacea, acne vulgaris, psoriasis, and AD [12, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42]. Moreover, changes in the microbiome composition can influence systemic immune responses, potentially affecting overall health and susceptibility to other diseases. This compromised barrier function can lead to an increased susceptibility to skin infections and colonization by potentially pathogenic microorganisms. For instance, older adults are more prone to infections like cellulitis, fungal foot infections, and shingles, which are caused by the reactivation of the varicella‐zoster virus.

Overall, the skin interactome combines the genome, microbiome, and exposome, impacting skin aging and health [14]. We must now focus on the maintenance of ideal skin conditions through reducing the negative impacts of factors affecting the skin interactome to prevent premature aging. Although there is a lack of sufficient clinical research on skin anti‐aging treatments, the increasing interest in this developing field highlights the need for more investigation, which could lead to future therapeutic breakthroughs.

3.4. Microbiome‐Mediated Responses to Cosmetic Procedures

There is a critical need for more comprehensive, long‐term studies to investigate the impact of cosmetic skincare products and procedures, including laser therapy, chemical peels, and injectables, on the skin microbiome. However, emollients containing prebiotics have been shown to support the growth of beneficial skin bacteria, maintaining the skin barrier and microbial balance. Furthermore, understanding how changes in the microbiome affect treatment outcomes and post‐procedure complications is essential for grasping the intricate dynamics of microbiome alterations, highlighting a crucial area of focus in healthcare [43]. In addition, there is a need to create prediction algorithms that may customize therapies according to individual microbiome profiles to improve safety and effectiveness. There are several studies highlighting the effects of cosmetic procedures and products on the skin microbiome, revealing various outcomes based on the nature of the products used and the specifics of the procedures involved. One study explored the dynamics of the skin microbiome over a 9‐week period involving regular use of different personal care products like deodorants and moisturizers. This research demonstrated that these products alter the microbial diversity of the skin through the persistence of product ingredients like polyethylene glycol in the skin's microbiome [44]. Another research focused on the impact of everyday cosmetics on skin health, particularly how synthetic ingredients might damage the skin microbiome. This study used different types of face washes, including those with synthetic ingredients versus completely natural ones, to evaluate their effects on skin's microbial diversity, pH, moisture, and trans‐epidermal water loss. The findings suggested a potential link between synthetic cosmetics and reduced microbiome biodiversity, which might impair skin health and thereby accelerate aging [45]. Another study explores the critical role of the skin microbiome in managing AD, emphasizing that dysbiosis can exacerbate the condition by disrupting the skin barrier and immunity. It highlights the effectiveness of an emollient “plus,” which includes active ingredients such as Vitreoscilla filiformis and microresyl, designed to rebalance the skin microbiome and reduce inflammation. This type of emollient has been shown to modulate the skin microbiome more effectively than standard emollients, thereby improving AD symptoms and reducing disease severity [46]. Additionally, exosomes, small extracellular vesicles crucial for cell communication, have been researched for their potential impact on the skin microbiome, with studies suggesting that they significantly contribute to skin health. By facilitating communication between cells by transferring proteins, lipids, and genetic materials, exosomes can affect the behavior and composition of the skin microbiota. This interaction could help enhance skin barrier functions, modulate immune responses, and directly affect microbial composition, promoting a healthier skin environment. Both plant and human‐derived exosomes contribute uniquely to skin health through their interactions with the skin microbiome, each leveraging their molecular properties to support skin integrity and function. Specifically, plant‐derived exosomes provide immediate, surface‐level benefits such as enhanced protection and hydration, while human‐derived exosomes contribute to deeper, more systemic improvements in skin health and cellular communication [47, 48]. Although the precise mechanisms and outcomes of these interactions remain under active investigation, preliminary findings suggest that dermatological treatments utilizing exosomes hold promise for maintaining or restoring a balanced skin microbiome, thus opening new pathways for innovative therapeutic strategies [49, 50].

3.5. The Impact of Bacteriophages, Endolysins, Probiotics, and Skin Transplantation on the Microbiome

The current section will review the transformative potential of bacteriotherapy in dermatology, focusing on its efficacy in managing the skin microbiome and enhancing skin health amidst aging. Biotherapeutic approaches include using phages, endolysins, probiotics, prebiotics, postbiotics, and microbiome transplantation to restore balance and enhance skin health. Research has shown reassuring results in using targeted bacterial therapies to combat pathogenic bacteria and reinforce the skin's natural defenses [51, 52, 53].

Bacteriophages and endolysins are assessed for their targeted antimicrobial actions which could selectively eliminate pathogenic bacteria, thereby restoring a balanced skin microbial environment. The review by Ito and Amagai dives into the implications of skin microbiota for health and therapeutic strategies, emphasizing the reliability of bacteriotherapy to treat skin conditions. Bacteriotherapy involves using live bacteria or their products to modify the skin microbiome, aiming to restore balance and enhance skin health. This approach is particularly highlighted in the context of treating skin diseases such as AD, where specific beneficial bacteria or their enzymes are applied to the skin to improve barrier function and reduce pathogenic bacteria [54, 55, 56]. The therapeutic potential of these strategies is substantial, given their ability to harness the natural properties of the skin's microbiota. However, the review does not specifically focus on aging but rather on broader applications, suggesting that further research is needed to explore and optimize these bacterial therapies for various skin health aspects, potentially including aging in future studies [57].

The roles of pro‐, pre‐, and postbiotics are explored in terms of their ability to foster a beneficial microbial flora, enhance skin barrier functions, and potentially reverse the effects of aging. Probiotics introduce beneficial bacteria to the skin, improving its natural defenses and barrier integrity, while prebiotics nourish these beneficial bacteria, promoting a balanced microbiome that supports overall skin health [58]. Postbiotics offer additional benefits such as anti‐inflammatory and antioxidant properties, which are essential for repairing skin damage and reducing signs of aging. Together, these biotic elements create a synergistic approach to skincare, aiming to maintain skin resilience, hydration, and youthful appearance through advanced bioactive ingredients [33].

Another emerging scientific consensus points out that the skin microbiome plays a fundamental role in both the success of skin transplants and the management of skin diseases. Skin transplantation, especially in the context of burn injuries or chronic wounds, can significantly interact with and alter the skin microbiome. The transplanted skin not only brings its own microbiome but also needs to integrate with the recipient's existing microbial communities [59]. This integration is crucial for the success of the transplant, as a balanced microbiome can promote better wound healing and reduce infection risks. Furthermore, research suggests that understanding and potentially modifying the microbiome at the site of transplantation may enhance graft survival and overall skin health. The study of the skin microbiome's role in transplantation is still evolving; at the same time, it puts new horizons at sight in the field of microbiome‐focused therapies in transplantations. Building on this concept, a study conducted by Myles et al. focuses on the role of skin transplantation in AD. In this experimental research, the team transplanted human skin microbiota into murine models to study its influence on disease development. The findings suggest that altering the skin's microbial community can affect inflammation and disease outcome, indicating a potential therapeutic avenue for treating AD through microbiota manipulation. This study contributes to the growing understanding of skin transplantation and microbiome's role in immune responses and inflammatory diseases [60]. It suggests an approach that could lead to the development of microbiota‐based therapies targeted at the underlying microbial imbalances, offering a personalized treatment option for patients suffering from various skin conditions.

3.6. Regulatory Aspects

Probiotics and microbial products used in skin care and health applications are regulated by a comprehensive framework developed majorly within the European Union (EU) and the USA, ensuring consumer safety, efficacy, and truthful marketing on a global scale. Products are classified into distinct regulatory pathways determined by their intended use and associated health claims. These pathways may involve authorization at the EU level or notification by the US member states. The classification process is carried out under the supervision of the European Food Safety Authority and the European Medicines Agency. The jurisdiction in the USA where product classification and pre‐market approval are regulated is the Food and Drug Administration. These frameworks exemplify cohesive and rigorous strategies for regulating microbial products and probiotics, with a focus on ensuring consumer safety, utilizing scientific evidence to support health claims, and adhering to ethical marketing standards [61, 62]. Within these frameworks, skincare products fall into various regulatory categories based on the type of the claim that are associated with them and whether they are administrated systemically or topically [63].

3.7. Future Directions

The integration of predictive models and machine learning techniques significantly enhances our understanding of the complex relationships within the skin microbiome. These tools can meticulously analyze extensive data from longitudinal studies, pinpointing how variables like diet, lifestyle, and cosmetic consumption interact with the microbiome to influence skin aging [64, 65].

Future research on microbiome‐mediated cosmetic responses covers several key areas. First, longitudinal studies are needed to understand the temporal dynamics of microbiome changes after different cosmetic interventions to better understand microbial resilience and recovery. In the future, integrating biosensors with the skin microbiota will transform healthcare. The advanced sensors will monitor biomarkers for disease detection and analyze interactions within the skin microbiome, offering personalized insights into skin health and wellness [66]. They can also reveal the microbial community's structure, function, and metabolic activity before and after procedures. Studying microbial biomarkers predictive of treatment outcomes and complications will enable personalized treatment strategies and risk assessment for cosmetic surgery patients. Utilizing this technology will enable individuals to actively oversee their well‐being with unprecedented precision and understanding [67, 68, 69]. Additionally, the development and use of 3D skin models can offer invaluable insights into how cosmetic treatments affect the skin microbiome in a controlled, replicable environment, enhancing our understanding of microbial interactions with skin tissues [11, 70]. Moreover, studying the skin microbiome and host immune responses post‐treatment can reveal microbiome‐mediated effects on treatment efficacy and adverse events [4, 23]. Finally, studies on microbiome‐targeted interventions like probiotics or microbiome‐modulating skincare products may improve cosmetic dermatology treatment outcomes and reduce post‐procedural complications. In the light of the infinite potentials that the field of dermatology holds with regard to skin microbiota, future research should focus on the complex relationship between the skin microbiome and cosmetic procedures to develop personalized skin health and aesthetics treatments.

4. Conclusion

The correlation between changes in the skin microbiota and the aging process is a significant area of focus in dermatological research, reflecting the complex interplay between microbial shifts and skin health over time. Evidence suggests that aging can lead to alterations in the skin environment, such as reduced lipid production and compromised barrier function, which in turn may favor the growth of certain microbial species while inhibiting others. These changes in the microbial landscape can influence the overall health and appearance of the skin, potentially exacerbating signs of aging. Conversely, emerging research also supports the idea that modifications in the skin microbiota itself might contribute directly to the aging process. For instance, an imbalance in microbial diversity or the overgrowth of pathogenic bacteria can provoke inflammatory responses, lead to oxidative stress, and cause tissue damage, all of which are key factors in the aging of skin. This suggests a potentially cyclical relationship where not only does aging affect microbial composition, but also changes in the microbiota may accelerate aging‐related skin deterioration. However, several limitations in our review must be acknowledged. The observational nature of the reviewed studies prevents a definitive establishment of causality between the skin microbiota and aging. Additionally, the variability in study designs, populations, and methodologies introduces a degree of uncertainty regarding the generalizability of the findings. Finally, the dynamic nature of the skin microbiota, influenced by a wide range of external and internal factors such as diet, lifestyle, and cosmetic use, adds further complexity to isolating the specific effects of microbiota changes on skin aging. These factors must be meticulously addressed in future studies to provide more holistic insights on developing aging skin treatment strategies. However, the current study builds a bulk of literature review that can contribute to future perspectives in this field.

Author Contributions

Diala Haykal wrote the manuscript, and Hugues Cartier and Brigitte Dréno reviewed it.

Ethics Statement

The authors have nothing to report.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability Statement

All information is included in the manuscript.

References

  • 1. Eisenstein M., “The Skin Microbiome,” Nature 588, no. 7838 (2020): S209, 10.1038/d41586-020-03523-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Grice E. A. and Segre J. A., “The Skin Microbiome,” Nature Reviews. Microbiology 9, no. 4 (2011): 244–253, 10.1038/nrmicro2537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Skowron K., Bauza‐Kaszewska J., Kraszewska Z., et al., “Human Skin Microbiome: Impact of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors on Skin Microbiota,” Microorganisms 9, no. 3 (2021): 543, 10.3390/microorganisms9030543. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Smythe P. and Wilkinson H. N., “The Skin Microbiome: Current Landscape and Future Opportunities,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24, no. 4 (2023): 3950, 10.3390/ijms24043950. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Harris‐Tryon T. A. and Grice E. A., “Microbiota and Maintenance of Skin Barrier Function,” Science 376, no. 6596 (2022): 940–945, 10.1126/science.abo0693. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Habeebuddin M., Karnati R. K., Shiroorkar P. N., et al., “Topical Probiotics: More Than a Skin Deep,” Pharmaceutics 14, no. 3 (2022): 557, 10.3390/pharmaceutics14030557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Serghiou I. R., Webber M. A., and Hall L. J., “An Update on the Current Understanding of the Infant Skin Microbiome and Research Challenges,” Current Opinion in Microbiology 75 (2023): 102364, 10.1016/j.mib.2023.102364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Scharschmidt T. C. and Fischbach M. A., “What Lives on Our Skin: Ecology, Genomics and Therapeutic Opportunities of the Skin Microbiome,” Drug Discovery Today: Disease Mechanisms 10, no. 3 (2013): e83–e89, 10.1016/j.ddmec.2012.12.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Xu H. and Li H., “Acne, the Skin Microbiome, and Antibiotic Treatment,” American Journal of Clinical Dermatology 20, no. 3 (2019): 335–344, 10.1007/s40257-018-00417-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Moitinho‐Silva L., Degenhardt F., Rodriguez E., et al., “Host Genetic Factors Related to Innate Immunity, Environmental Sensing and Cellular Functions Are Associated With Human Skin Microbiota,” Nature Communications 13, no. 1 (2022): 6204, 10.1038/s41467-022-33906-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Boxberger M., Cenizo V., Cassir N., and La Scola B., “Challenges in Exploring and Manipulating the Human Skin Microbiome,” Microbiome 9, no. 1 (2021): 125, 10.1186/s40168-021-01062-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Yang Y., Qu L., Mijakovic I., and Wei Y., “Advances in the Human Skin Microbiota and Its Roles in Cutaneous Diseases,” Microbial Cell Factories 21, no. 1 (2022): 176, 10.1186/s12934-022-01901-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Gallo R. L., “Human Skin Is the Largest Epithelial Surface for Interaction With Microbes,” Journal of Investigative Dermatology 137, no. 6 (2017): 1213–1214, 10.1016/j.jid.2016.11.045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Callewaert C., Ravard Helffer K., and Lebaron P., “Skin Microbiome and Its Interplay With the Environment,” American Journal of Clinical Dermatology 21, no. 1 (2020): 4–11, 10.1007/s40257-020-00551-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Zhu Y., Yu X., and Cheng G., “Human Skin Bacterial Microbiota Homeostasis: A Delicate Balance Between Health and Disease,” mLife 2, no. 2 (2023): 107–120, 10.1002/mlf2.12064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. McCarthy S., Barrett M., Kirthi S., et al., “Altered Skin and Gut Microbiome in Hidradenitis Suppurativa,” Journal of Investigative Dermatology 142, no. 2 (2022): 459–468.e15, 10.1016/j.jid.2021.05.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Chambers E. S. and Vukmanovic‐Stejic M., “Skin Barrier Immunity and Ageing,” Immunology 160, no. 2 (2020): 116–125, 10.1111/imm.13152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Baldwin H. E., Bhatia N. D., Friedman A., Eng R. M., and Seite S., “The Role of Cutaneous Microbiota Harmony in Maintaining a Functional Skin Barrier,” Journal of Drugs in Dermatology 16, no. 1 (2017): 12–18. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Johnson T. R., Gómez B. I., McIntyre M. K., et al., “The Cutaneous Microbiome and Wounds: New Molecular Targets to Promote Wound Healing,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 19, no. 9 (2018): 2699, 10.3390/ijms19092699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Demessant‐Flavigny A. L., Connétable S., Kerob D., Moreau M., Aguilar L., and Wollenberg A., “Skin Microbiome Dysbiosis and the Role of Staphylococcus Aureus in Atopic Dermatitis in Adults and Children: A Narrative Review,” Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 37, no. Suppl 5 (2023): 3–17, 10.1111/jdv.19125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Dessinioti C. and Katsambas A., “The Microbiome and Acne: Perspectives for Treatment,” Dermatologic Therapy 14, no. 1 (2024): 31–44, 10.1007/s13555-023-01079-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Myers T., Bouslimani A., Huang S., et al., “A Multi‐Study Analysis Enables Identification of Potential Microbial Features Associated With Skin Aging Signs,” Frontiers in Aging 4 (2023): 1304705, 10.3389/fragi.2023.1304705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Ratanapokasatit Y., Laisuan W., Rattananukrom T., Petchlorlian A., Thaipisuttikul I., and Sompornrattanaphan M., “How Microbiomes Affect Skin Aging: The Updated Evidence and Current Perspectives,” Life 12, no. 7 (2022): 936, 10.3390/life12070936. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Nakatsuji T., Cheng J. Y., and Gallo R. L., “Mechanisms for Control of Skin Immune Function by the Microbiome,” Current Opinion in Immunology 72 (2021): 324–330, 10.1016/j.coi.2021.09.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Hurlow J. and Bliss D. Z., “Dry Skin in Older Adults,” Geriatric Nursing (New York, N.Y.) 32, no. 4 (2011): 257–262, 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2011.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Jugé R., Rouaud‐Tinguely P., Breugnot J., et al., “Shift in Skin Microbiota of Western European Women Across Aging,” Journal of Applied Microbiology 125, no. 3 (2018): 907–916, 10.1111/jam.13929. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Dréno B., Araviiskaia E., Berardesca E., et al., “Microbiome in Healthy Skin, Update for Dermatologists,” Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 30, no. 12 (2016): 2038–2047, 10.1111/jdv.13965. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Byrd A. L., Belkaid Y., and Segre J. A., “The Human Skin Microbiome,” Nature Reviews. Microbiology 16, no. 3 (2018): 143–155, 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Kano M., Masuoka N., Kaga C., et al., “Consecutive Intake of Fermented Milk Containing Bifidobacterium Breve Strain Yakult and Galacto‐Oligosaccharides Benefits Skin Condition in Healthy Adult Women,” Bioscience of Microbiota, Food and Health 32, no. 1 (2013): 33–39, 10.12938/bmfh.32.33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Woo Y. R. and Kim H. S., “Interaction Between the Microbiota and the Skin Barrier in Aging Skin: A Comprehensive Review,” Frontiers in Physiology 15 (2024): 1322205, 10.3389/fphys.2024.1322205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Sharma D., Kober M. M., and Bowe W. P., “Anti‐Aging Effects of Probiotics,” Journal of Drugs in Dermatology 15, no. 1 (2016): 9–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Dimarzio L., Cinque B., Cupelli F., De Simone C., Cifone M. G., and Giuliani M., “Increase of Skin‐Ceramide Levels in Aged Subjects Following a Short‐Term Topical Application of Bacterial Sphingomyelinase From Streptococcus thermophilus ,” International Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology 21, no. 1 (2008): 137–143, 10.1177/039463200802100115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Notay M., Saric‐Bosanac S., Vaughn A. R., et al., “The Use of Topical Nitrosomonas eutropha for Cosmetic Improvement of Facial Wrinkles,” Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology 19, no. 3 (2020): 689–693, 10.1111/jocd.13060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Weyrich L. S., Dixit S., Farrer A. G., Cooper A. J., and Cooper A. J., “The Skin Microbiome: Associations Between Altered Microbial Communities and Disease,” Australasian Journal of Dermatology 56, no. 4 (2015): 268–274, 10.1111/ajd.12253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Rocha M. A. and Bagatin E., “Skin Barrier and Microbiome in Acne,” Archives of Dermatological Research 310, no. 3 (2018): 181–185, 10.1007/s00403-017-1795-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Kang B. S., Seo J. G., Lee G. S., et al., “Antimicrobial Activity of Enterocins From Enterococcus faecalis SL‐5 Against Propionibacterium acnes, the Causative Agent in Acne Vulgaris, and Its Therapeutic Effect,” Journal of Microbiology (Seoul, Korea) 47, no. 1 (2009): 101–109, 10.1007/s12275-008-0179-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Lee Y. B., Byun E. J., and Kim H. S., “Potential Role of the Microbiome in Acne: A Comprehensive Review,” Journal of Clinical Medicine 8, no. 7 (2019): 987, 10.3390/jcm8070987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Thio H. B., “The Microbiome in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis: The Skin Perspective,” Journal of Rheumatology. Supplement 94 (2018): 30–31, 10.3899/jrheum.180133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. França K., “Topical Probiotics in Dermatological Therapy and Skincare: A Concise Review,” Dermatologic Therapy 11, no. 1 (2021): 71–77, 10.1007/s13555-020-00476-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Guéniche A., Hennino A., Goujon C., et al., “Improvement of Atopic Dermatitis Skin Symptoms by Vitreoscilla filiformis Bacterial Extract,” European Journal of Dermatology 16, no. 4 (2006): 380–384. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Guéniche A., Cathelineau A. C., Bastien P., et al., “ Vitreoscilla filiformis Biomass Improves Seborrheic Dermatitis,” Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 22, no. 8 (2008): 1014–1015, 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2007.02508.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Chen Y. E. and Tsao H., “The Skin Microbiome: Current Perspectives and Future Challenges,” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 69, no. 1 (2013): 143–155.e3, 10.1016/j.jaad.2013.01.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Carvalho M. J., S Oliveira A. L., Santos Pedrosa S., Pintado M., Pinto‐Ribeiro I., and Madureira A. R., “Skin Microbiota and the Cosmetic Industry,” Microbial Ecology 86, no. 1 (2023): 86–96, 10.1007/s00248-022-02070-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Bouslimani A., da Silva R., Kosciolek T., et al., “The Impact of Skin Care Products on Skin Chemistry and Microbiome Dynamics,” BMC Biology 17, no. 1 (2019): 47, 10.1186/s12915-019-0660-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Wallen‐Russell C., “The Role of Every‐Day Cosmetics in Altering the Skin Microbiome: A Study Using Biodiversity,” Cosmetics 6, no. 1 (2019): 2, 10.3390/cosmetics6010002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Ch'ng C. C., “Rebalancing of the Skin Microbiome With an Emollient “Plus” for Effective Management of Atopic Dermatitis: A Mini Review,” Medical Journal of Malaysia 79, no. 2 (2024): 203–205. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Sarasati A., Syahruddin M. H., Nuryanti A., et al., “Plant‐Derived Exosome‐Like Nanoparticles for Biomedical Applications and Regenerative Therapy,” Biomedicine 11, no. 4 (2023): 1053, 10.3390/biomedicines11041053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Bai G., Truong T. M., Pathak G. N., Benoit L., and Rao B., “Clinical Applications of Exosomes in Cosmetic Dermatology,” Skin Health and Disease (2024): e348, 10.1002/ski2.348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Ghasemian S. O., “Application of Exosomes‐Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Treatment of Fungal Diseases: From Basic to Clinical Sciences,” Frontiers in Fungal Biology 2 (2021): 736093, 10.3389/ffunb.2021.736093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Dagnelie M. A., Corvec S., Khammari A., and Dréno B., “Bacterial Extracellular Vesicles: A New Way to Decipher Host‐Microbiota Communications in Inflammatory Dermatoses,” Experimental Dermatology 29, no. 1 (2020): 22–28, 10.1111/exd.14050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Hendricks A. J., Mills B. W., and Shi V. Y., “Skin Bacterial Transplant in Atopic Dermatitis: Knowns, Unknowns and Emerging Trends,” Journal of Dermatological Science 95, no. 2 (2019): 56–61, 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2019.07.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Natarelli N., Gahoonia N., and Sivamani R. K., “Bacteriophages and the Microbiome in Dermatology: The Role of the Phageome and a Potential Therapeutic Strategy,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24, no. 3 (2023): 2695, 10.3390/ijms24032695. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Özal D., Arndt A., and Thomé M., “Bacteriophages and Related Endolysins for Reduction of Microorganisms in the Human Body – A Systematic Review,” GMS Hygiene and Infection Control 17 (2022): Doc01, 10.3205/dgkh000404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Castillo‐González R., Fernández‐Delgado I., and Comberiati P., “Bacteriotherapy With Human Skin Commensals in Atopic Dermatitis,” Allergy 77, no. 4 (2022): 1331–1333, 10.1111/all.15162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Dewi D. A. R., Perdiyana A., Wiliantari N. M., et al., “Managing the Skin Microbiome as a New Bacteriotherapy for Inflammatory Atopic Dermatitis,” Cureus 15, no. 11 (2023): e48803, 10.7759/cureus.48803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Smirnova I., Khazhomiya K., Ptashnikova P., and Smirnova O., “Skin Microbiome and Possibilities of Bacteriotherapy (On Example of Skin Aging and Atopic Dermatitis),” Medical Alphabet no. 24 (2023): 20–26, 10.33667/2078-5631-2023-24-20-26. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Ito Y. and Amagai M., “Controlling Skin Microbiome as a New Bacteriotherapy for Inflammatory Skin Diseases,” Inflammation and Regeneration 42, no. 1 (2022): 26, 10.1186/s41232-022-00212-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Park S. B., Im M., Lee Y., et al., “Effect of Emollients Containing Vegetable‐Derived Lactobacillus in the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis Symptoms: Split‐Body Clinical Trial,” Annals of Dermatology 26, no. 2 (2014): 150–155, 10.5021/ad.2014.26.2.150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Perin B., Addetia A., and Qin X., “Transfer of Skin Microbiota Between Two Dissimilar Autologous Microenvironments: A Pilot Study,” PLoS One 14, no. 12 (2019): e0226857, 10.1371/journal.pone.0226857. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Myles I. A., Williams K. W., Reckhow J. D., et al., “Transplantation of Human Skin Microbiota in Models of Atopic Dermatitis,” JCI Insight 1, no. 10 (2016): e86955, 10.1172/jci.insight.86955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. von Wright A., “Regulatory Aspects of Probiotics and Other Microbial Products Intended for Skin Care,” in Skin Microbiome Handbook, ed. Dayan N. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2020), 321–341. [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Yingling G. L. and Onel S., “Regulatory Agencies, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics,” in Kirk‐Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, ed. Kirk‐Othmer (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2000). [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Arora R., Kaur R., Babbar R., Dhingra S., Dhingra A. K., and Grewal A. S., “Evolving Advances in the Cosmetic Use of Probiotics and Postbiotics: Health, Regulatory and Marketing Aspects,” Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology 25 (2023): 1349–1361, 10.2174/1389201024666230703115732. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Hernández Medina R., Kutuzova S., Nielsen K. N., et al., “Machine Learning and Deep Learning Applications in Microbiome Research,” ISME Communications 2, no. 1 (2022): 98, 10.1038/s43705-022-00182-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Papoutsoglou G., Tarazona S., Lopes M. B., et al., “Machine Learning Approaches in Microbiome Research: Challenges and Best Practices,” Frontiers in Microbiology 14 (2023): 1261889, 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1261889. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Haykal D., “Unleashing the Power of Biosensors and AI in Dermatology,” Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum 6 (2024): ojae030, 10.1093/asjof/ojae030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Bhalla N., Jolly P., Formisano N., and Estrela P., “Introduction to Biosensors,” Essays in Biochemistry 60, no. 1 (2016): 1–8, 10.1042/EBC20150001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Wang Y., Zhou W., Shen C., Jiang G., and Yang C., “Flexible and Printable Integrated Biosensors for Monitoring Sweat and Skin Condition,” Analytical Biochemistry 661 (2023): 114985, 10.1016/j.ab.2022.114985. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Dhond K., Hu Y., and Yetisen A. K., “Dermal Tattoo Biosensors,” Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany) 74, no. 10 (2023): 819–821, 10.1007/s00105-023-05195-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Prescott S. L., Larcombe D. L., Logan A. C., et al., “The Skin Microbiome: Impact of Modern Environments on Skin Ecology, Barrier Integrity, and Systemic Immune Programming,” World Allergy Organization Journal 10, no. 1 (2017): 29, 10.1186/s40413-017-0160-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

All information is included in the manuscript.


Articles from Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES