Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025 May;11(5):001405.
doi: 10.1099/mgen.0.001405.

Assessing the safety of microbiome perturbations

Affiliations
Review

Assessing the safety of microbiome perturbations

Aline Metris et al. Microb Genom. 2025 May.

Abstract

Everyday actions such as eating, tooth brushing or applying cosmetics inherently modulate our microbiome. Advances in sequencing technologies now facilitate detailed microbial profiling, driving intentional microbiome-targeted product development. Inspired by an academic-industry workshop held in January 2024, this review explores the oral, skin and gut microbiomes, focussing on the potential long-term implications of perturbations. Key challenges in microbiome safety assessment include confounding factors (ecological variability, host influences and external conditions like geography and diet) and biases from experimental measurements and bioinformatics analyses. The taxonomic composition of the microbiome has been associated with both health and disease, and perturbations like regular disruption of the dental biofilm are essential for preventing caries and inflammatory gum disease. However, further research is required to understand the potential long-term impacts of microbiome disturbances, particularly in vulnerable populations including infants. We propose that emerging technologies, such as omics technologies to characterize microbiome functions rather than taxa, leveraging artificial intelligence to interpret clinical study data and in vitro models to characterize and measure host-microbiome interaction endpoints, could all enhance the risk assessments. The workshop emphasized the importance of detailed documentation, transparency and openness in computational models to reduce uncertainties. Harmonisation of methods could help bridge regulatory gaps and streamline safety assessments but should remain flexible enough to allow innovation and technological advancements. Continued scientific collaboration and public engagement are critical for long-term microbiome monitoring, which is essential to advancing safety assessments of microbiome perturbations.

Keywords: artificial intelligence (AI)/ML; clinical studies; gut; in vitro models; microbiome; oral; safety assessment; skin.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

A.M., A.A., B.M., and S.K. are Unilever employees. A.W.W. has received consultancy fees from EnteroBiotix Ltd and ZOE Ltd. G.A. is a Reckitt employee. A.S. is a BugBiome employee. A.J.M. has received travel, consultancy and speaker’s fees in the areas of microbial control, biofilms and the human microbiome and is a coinventor on a patent involving pro- and post-biotic bacteria. H.L.B. sits on the Scientific Advisory Board of Chuckling Goat Ltd. O.H. is an IFF Health and Biosciences employee. C.S. is a regulatory consultant. J.P.T. is an employee of The Procter and Gamble Company.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.. Summary of the workshop outputs. Endpoints defining host–microbiome interactions in health and disease remain poorly defined. Effective risk assessment is challenging due to uncertainties introduced by confounding factors such as lifestyle and environmental influences (green circle), as well as biases inherent in measurement techniques and data analysis methods (blue circle). To address these challenges, we propose integrating standardized in vitro testing and longitudinal monitoring of vulnerable populations to better assess potential risks. Additionally, uncertainties can be reduced by capturing extensive host metadata, utilizing advanced digital processing techniques, including emerging AI approaches and employing open access computational models.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.. The distribution of genomes found in the four MGnify human microbiome catalogues: gut, skin, vaginal and oral. While each of these catalogues contains different numbers of genomes and is not directly comparable, the maps highlight the geographic skew of the samples contributing to the genomes found within these catalogues, with human microbiomes from North America, Europe and China representing the bulk of the data [181].

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Louis P, Hold GL, Flint HJ. The gut microbiota, bacterial metabolites and colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2014;12:661–672. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3344. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Moeller AH, Caro-Quintero A, Mjungu D, Georgiev AV, Lonsdorf EV, et al. Cospeciation of gut microbiota with hominids. Science. 2016;353:380–382. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf3951. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Donaldson GP, Lee SM, Mazmanian SK. Gut biogeography of the bacterial microbiota. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016;14:20–32. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3552. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shao Y, Forster SC, Tsaliki E, Vervier K, Strang A, et al. Stunted microbiota and opportunistic pathogen colonisation in caesarean-section birth. Nature. 2019;574:117–121. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1560-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stewart CJ, Ajami NJ, O’Brien JL, Hutchinson DS, Smith DP, et al. Temporal development of the gut microbiome in early childhood from the TEDDY study. Nature. 2018;562:583–588. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0617-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources