Introduction

The human skin harbors an estimated one trillion microorganisms across approximately two square meters of surface area. This complex ecosystem, known as the skin microbiome, comprises bacteria, fungi, viruses, and archaea that exist in dynamic equilibrium with the host immune system. For decades, dermatological practice focused primarily on eliminating pathogenic microorganisms through antimicrobial treatments. However, emerging research has revealed that the skin microbiome plays a fundamental role in maintaining cutaneous health and preventing disease.

The concept of therapeutic modulation of the microbiome represents a paradigm shift in dermatological thinking. Rather than simply targeting pathogens, this approach seeks to restore and maintain beneficial microbial communities. The growing interest in microbiome-based therapies has generated both excitement and skepticism within the medical community. Some researchers herald microbiome interventions as revolutionary treatments that will transform dermatological care. Others caution that the field remains in its infancy, with limited clinical evidence to support broad therapeutic claims.

This critical analysis examines the current evidence base for microbiome-based dermatology. We evaluate whether recent research findings justify the substantial investment and attention directed toward this field. The review addresses fundamental questions about the clinical utility of microbiome diagnostics, the efficacy of microbiome-targeted therapeutics, and the practical challenges of implementing them in routine dermatological practice.

The Skin Microbiome: Basic Principles and Functions

Microbial Ecology of Healthy Skin

Human skin provides diverse microenvironments that support distinct microbial communities. Sebaceous areas, including the face and upper chest, are dominated by lipophilic organisms such as Cutibacterium acnes and Malassezia species. Moist areas, including the axillae and groin, harbor gram-negative bacteria, including Corynebacterium and Staphylococcus species. Dry areas, such as the forearms and legs, show lower microbial diversity, with the predominant phyla being Actinobacteria and Firmicutes.

The skin microbiome performs several protective functions that maintain cutaneous homeostasis. Beneficial bacteria produce antimicrobial peptides and bacteriocins that inhibit pathogenic organisms. Commensal microorganisms compete with pathogens for nutrients and binding sites, preventing colonization by harmful species. The microbiome also modulates local immune responses, promoting appropriate inflammatory reactions while preventing excessive immune activation.

Recent metagenomic studies have revealed that skin microbial diversity varies substantially between individuals and body sites. Age, sex, ethnicity, geographic location, and lifestyle factors all influence microbial composition. These findings have important implications for developing personalized microbiome-based treatments, as therapeutic approaches may need to account for individual variations in baseline microbial communities.

Microbiome Dysbiosis in Dermatological Disease

Disruption of normal microbial communities, termed dysbiosis, has been implicated in numerous dermatological conditions. In acne vulgaris, specific strains of C. acnes have been associated with inflammatory lesions, while other strains appear protective. Bacterial diversity in acne-affected skin is generally reduced compared with healthy controls, suggesting that microbial imbalance contributes to disease pathogenesis.

Atopic dermatitis represents one of the clearest examples of microbiome-disease associations. Patients with atopic dermatitis show marked reductions in microbial diversity, with Staphylococcus aureus often comprising the majority of the bacterial community during disease flares. S. aureus produces toxins and proteases that disrupt skin barrier function and promote inflammation. The severity of atopic dermatitis correlates inversely with microbial diversity, supporting the hypothesis that dysbiosis drives disease progression.

Psoriasis patients exhibit distinct microbial signatures, characterized by increased Firmicutes and decreased Actinobacteria compared with healthy controls. However, the relationship between microbial changes and psoriasis pathogenesis remains less clear than in atopic dermatitis. Some studies suggest that microbial dysbiosis may be a consequence rather than a cause of psoriatic inflammation.

Current Diagnostic Approaches

Culture-Independent Methods

Traditional culture-based methods detect only a small fraction of skin microorganisms, as many species cannot be cultured under standard laboratory conditions. Modern microbiome analysis relies primarily on culture-independent molecular techniques. 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing provides taxonomic identification and relative abundance data for bacterial communities. This approach has become the standard method for microbiome research and is increasingly used in clinical settings.

Shotgun metagenomic sequencing provides more detailed insights into microbial communities, including functional gene content and strain-level identification. However, the higher cost and computational requirements of metagenomic approaches limit their routine clinical use. Targeted quantitative PCR assays provide rapid, cost-effective detection of specific microorganisms and are well-suited for clinical applications focused on particular pathogens or beneficial species.

Clinical Utility of Microbiome Testing

Several companies now offer commercial skin microbiome testing services marketed to both healthcare providers and consumers. These tests typically analyze bacterial composition from skin swabs and generate reports that compare results to reference databases. However, the clinical utility of such testing remains uncertain due to limited validation studies and unclear therapeutic implications.

Interpreting microbiome test results poses substantial challenges. Normal microbial variation between individuals and body sites makes it difficult to define universal standards for healthy microbial communities. The temporal stability of skin microbiomes varies considerably, with some individuals showing relatively stable communities while others demonstrate substantial fluctuations over time. These factors complicate the development of clinically actionable reference ranges.

Current evidence does not support routine microbiome testing for most dermatological conditions. While research studies have identified statistical associations between microbial patterns and skin diseases, these findings have not been translated into validated diagnostic or prognostic tools. The American Academy of Dermatology has not issued guidelines recommending microbiome testing for any dermatological indication.

Therapeutic Applications

Topical Probiotic Treatments

Topical application of beneficial microorganisms represents one of the most direct approaches to microbiome modulation. Several clinical trials have evaluated topical probiotics for various dermatological conditions. A randomized controlled trial of Lactobacillus plantarum in patients with atopic dermatitis demonstrated modest improvements in disease severity scores compared with placebo. However, the clinical effect size was relatively small, and long-term safety data were limited.

Topical Staphylococcus epidermidis has shown promise for treating atopic dermatitis. S. epidermidis strains isolated from healthy individuals produce antimicrobial peptides that inhibit S. aureus growth. In a small pilot study, patients treated with autologous S. epidermidis transplantation showed reduced S. aureus colonization and improved clinical outcomes. These findings require validation in larger, controlled trials before clinical implementation.

The development of topical probiotic formulations faces several technical challenges. Live microorganisms must remain viable during product storage and application while maintaining their beneficial properties. Regulatory frameworks for live topical therapeutics are still evolving, creating uncertainty about approval pathways. The optimal dosing, frequency, and duration of topical probiotic treatments have not been established for most applications.

Oral Probiotic Interventions

Oral probiotic supplements may influence skin health by modulating systemic immunity and altering metabolite production. Several studies have examined the use of oral probiotics for acne treatment. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found that oral probiotics modestly reduced inflammatory acne lesions compared to placebo. The effect size was generally smaller than that observed with standard acne treatments such as topical retinoids or antibiotics.

For atopic dermatitis, the evidence supporting oral probiotics is mixed. Some studies report benefits in pediatric populations, particularly in preventing atopic dermatitis in high-risk infants. However, treatment trials in established atopic dermatitis have shown inconsistent results. The heterogeneity of probiotic strains, dosing regimens, and study populations makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about efficacy.

The mechanisms by which oral probiotics influence skin health remain incompletely understood. Proposed pathways include modulation of systemic immune responses, production of beneficial metabolites, and indirect effects on skin barrier function. The relationship between gut and skin microbiomes, often termed the “gut-skin axis,” is an active area of research that may inform future therapeutic strategies.

Prebiotic and Postbiotic Approaches

Prebiotic treatments aim to promote the growth of beneficial skin microorganisms through targeted nutrition. Topical application of specific nutrients or growth factors may selectively support desired microbial communities. Some cosmetic products contain prebiotic ingredients such as oligosaccharides or amino acids intended to nourish beneficial bacteria.

Postbiotics, consisting of beneficial metabolites produced by microorganisms, represent an alternative to live probiotic treatments. Short-chain fatty acids, antimicrobial peptides, and other microbial metabolites may provide therapeutic benefits without the regulatory complexities of live organisms. Several companies are developing postbiotic skincare products, though clinical evidence remains limited.

One amusing anecdote illustrates the sometimes unpredictable nature of microbiome research. A dermatologist colleague recounted how her teenage daughter, frustrated with persistent acne, decided to apply yogurt to her face after reading about probiotics online. While the improvised treatment predictably resulted in a messy face and no clinical improvement, it sparked a family discussion about evidence-based medicine that proved more valuable than any skincare routine.

Evidence-Based Clinical Outcomes

Acne Vulgaris

The role of C. acnes in acne pathogenesis has been recognized for decades, but recent research has revealed strain-specific differences in virulence and treatment response. Phylogenetic analysis has identified distinct C. acnes clades associated with healthy skin versus acne-prone skin. This finding suggests that selectively targeting pathogenic strains while preserving beneficial strains may improve treatment outcomes.

A randomized controlled trial evaluated a topical probiotic lotion containing Enterococcus faecalis for mild-to-moderate acne. After 8 weeks of treatment, patients showed statistically meaningful reductions in inflammatory lesion counts compared to vehicle control. However, the magnitude of improvement was less than that typically achieved with standard acne treatments such as benzoyl peroxide or topical antibiotics.

Combination approaches integrating microbiome-based treatments with conventional therapies may offer advantages over either approach alone. A pilot study examined the combination of oral probiotics and topical tretinoin for acne treatment. Patients receiving combination therapy showed greater improvements in lesion counts and subjective assessments than those receiving tretinoin alone. These findings suggest potential synergistic effects that warrant further investigation.

Atopic Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis represents the dermatological condition with the strongest evidence supporting microbiome-based interventions. The consistent association between S. aureus colonization and disease severity provides a clear therapeutic target. Several approaches have been developed to reduce S. aureus burden and restore microbial diversity.

Bleach baths, recommended by national guidelines for atopic dermatitis, effectively reduce S. aureus colonization and improve clinical outcomes. While not typically classified as a microbiome intervention, bleach baths demonstrate the therapeutic value of microbial modulation in the treatment of atopic dermatitis. The antimicrobial effects of dilute sodium hypochlorite solutions help restore microbial balance while reducing pathogenic bacteria.

A phase II clinical trial evaluated autologous microbial transplantation for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Patients underwent skin swab collection during disease remission, followed by cultivation and expansion of beneficial bacteria. During subsequent disease flares, patients received topical application of their own expanded microorganisms. Preliminary results showed promising clinical improvements and excellent safety profiles, leading to ongoing phase III trials.

Psoriasis

The evidence for microbiome-based treatments in psoriasis remains limited compared to other inflammatory skin conditions. While microbial dysbiosis has been documented in psoriasis patients, the causal relationship between microbial changes and disease pathogenesis is unclear. Most studies have been observational rather than interventional, limiting conclusions about therapeutic potential.

One small pilot study examined the use of oral probiotics as an adjunctive therapy for plaque psoriasis. Patients receiving Lactobacillus casei supplementation showed modest improvements in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores compared to placebo. However, the study was underpowered to detect clinically important differences, and larger trials are needed to validate these findings.

The systemic nature of psoriasis, involving immune dysfunction beyond the skin, may limit the effectiveness of topical microbiome interventions. Future research may need to focus on systemic approaches that address both local skin dysbiosis and underlying immune abnormalities.

Comparative Analysis with Conventional Treatments

Efficacy Considerations

Current evidence suggests that microbiome-based treatments generally yield modest clinical improvements compared with established dermatological therapies. For acne treatment, topical retinoids and antibiotics typically achieve greater reductions in lesion counts than reported for probiotic interventions. Similarly, topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors remain more effective than microbiome treatments for controlling atopic dermatitis symptoms.

However, direct efficacy comparisons may not capture the full value proposition of microbiome-based approaches. These treatments may offer unique advantages in terms of safety profiles, resistance patterns, and long-term effects on skin health. Unlike antibiotics, probiotic treatments do not contribute to antimicrobial resistance and may actually help restore normal microbial communities.

The timeline for clinical improvement also differs between microbiome and conventional treatments. Topical corticosteroids typically provide rapid symptom relief within days to weeks, while microbiome interventions may require months to achieve optimal effects. This difference in onset time may influence patient acceptance and treatment adherence.

Safety Profiles

Microbiome-based treatments generally demonstrate excellent safety profiles in clinical trials. Topical and oral probiotics are associated with low rates of adverse events, primarily consisting of mild skin irritation or gastrointestinal symptoms. The risk of serious adverse events appears minimal for most microbiome interventions.

In contrast, conventional dermatological treatments often pose greater safety concerns. Topical corticosteroids can cause skin atrophy, stretch marks, and systemic absorption effects with prolonged use. Oral antibiotics are associated with gastrointestinal side effects, photosensitivity, and contributions to antimicrobial resistance. Systemic immunosuppressants used for severe inflammatory skin diseases carry risks of infection and malignancy.

The favorable safety profile of microbiome treatments makes them attractive options for long-term maintenance therapy and pediatric applications. However, long-term safety data for most microbiome interventions remain limited, as clinical trials have typically followed patients for months rather than years.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Economic evaluations of microbiome-based dermatological treatments are scarce, reflecting their early-stage clinical development. The cost-effectiveness of these interventions depends on multiple factors, including treatment efficacy, safety profile, duration of effect, and impact on quality of life. Preliminary economic models suggest that microbiome treatments may be cost-effective for certain indications, particularly when considering long-term outcomes and healthcare utilization.

The development costs for microbiome-based therapeutics are generally lower than those for small-molecule drugs, as they may qualify for expedited regulatory pathways and require less extensive preclinical testing. However, manufacturing costs for live probiotic products can be substantial due to requirements for cold storage and quality control testing.

Table 1 presents a comparative analysis of different therapeutic approaches for common dermatological conditions.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Dermatological Treatment Approaches

Treatment Category	Typical Onset	Efficacy Rating	Safety Profile	Cost Level	Resistance Risk
Topical Corticosteroids	Days	High	Moderate	Low	None
Topical Antibiotics	Weeks	Moderate-High	Moderate	Low	High
Oral Antibiotics	Weeks	High	Moderate	Low	High
Topical Retinoids	Months	High	Moderate	Moderate	None
Topical Probiotics	Months	Low-Moderate	High	Moderate	None
Oral Probiotics	Months	Low	High	Low	None
Microbiome Transplant	Weeks-Months	Moderate	High	High	None

Regulatory and Clinical Implementation Challenges

FDA Regulatory Framework

The regulatory pathway for microbiome-based therapeutics remains complex and evolving. Live biotherapeutic products are subject to FDA drug regulations and require extensive clinical testing for safety and efficacy. The agency has issued guidance documents outlining requirements for developing live biotherapeutics, including manufacturing standards, quality control measures, and clinical trial design considerations.

Probiotic supplements marketed as dietary supplements face less stringent regulatory oversight but cannot make specific medical claims. This regulatory distinction creates confusion among healthcare providers and patients about the evidence base and appropriate indications for different microbiome products.

The FDA has approved several live biotherapeutic products for gastrointestinal indications, establishing precedent for microbiome-based therapeutics. However, no live biotherapeutic products have received FDA approval for dermatological indications as of 2024. Several companies have initiated phase III clinical trials for skin microbiome therapeutics, suggesting that FDA approvals may be forthcoming.

Clinical Practice Integration

Integration of microbiome-based treatments into routine dermatological practice faces several practical challenges. Healthcare providers require education about microbiome science, diagnostic interpretation, and therapeutic applications. The complexity of microbial ecology and its clinical implications may seem daunting to practitioners accustomed to more straightforward antimicrobial approaches.

Reimbursement policies for microbiome testing and treatments remain unclear. Most insurance plans do not cover experimental or investigational therapies, limiting patient access to microbiome-based interventions. Coverage decisions will likely depend on the availability of robust clinical evidence demonstrating cost-effectiveness and improved patient outcomes.

Patient education represents another important consideration for clinical implementation. Many patients have misconceptions about microbiomes due to marketing claims or incomplete information in popular media. Healthcare providers must be prepared to discuss the current evidence base honestly while appropriately managing patient expectations.

Future Research Directions

Personalized Microbiome Medicine

The substantial inter-individual variation in skin microbiomes suggests that personalized approaches may be necessary to optimize therapeutic outcomes. Future research should focus on identifying biomarkers that predict treatment response and guide therapeutic selection. Machine learning approaches may help integrate complex microbial, genetic, and clinical data to develop personalized treatment algorithms.

Advances in rapid diagnostic technologies may enable real-time assessment of the microbiome in clinical settings. Point-of-care testing devices could provide immediate feedback about microbial communities and guide treatment decisions. However, such technologies must demonstrate clinical utility and cost-effectiveness to achieve widespread adoption.

The development of standardized protocols for microbiome sampling, processing, and analysis is essential for clinical translation. Current research studies use varied methodologies, making it difficult to compare results across studies or to translate findings into clinical practice. Professional societies and regulatory agencies should collaborate to establish consensus standards for microbiome testing in dermatology.

Novel Therapeutic Approaches

Next-generation microbiome therapeutics may move beyond simple probiotic supplementation toward more sophisticated interventions. Engineered microorganisms designed to produce specific therapeutic compounds could provide targeted treatment effects. Bacteriophage therapy may offer precise tools for eliminating pathogenic bacteria while preserving beneficial species.

Combination therapies integrating microbiome interventions with conventional treatments represent a promising research direction. Synergistic effects between probiotics and standard medications could enhance therapeutic efficacy while potentially reducing side effects or treatment duration.

The concept of “smart” microbiome interventions that respond to environmental conditions or disease states is emerging as a future possibility. Microorganisms could be engineered to sense inflammatory signals and respond by producing anti-inflammatory compounds. While such approaches remain experimental, they illustrate the potential for sophisticated microbiome-based therapeutics.

Limitations and Challenges

Scientific and Methodological Limitations

Current microbiome research in dermatology faces several methodological limitations that affect the interpretation and clinical translation of findings. Most studies are observational cross-sectional designs that cannot establish causal relationships between microbial changes and disease outcomes. Longitudinal studies with repeated sampling are needed to understand the temporal dynamics of microbiome-disease interactions.

Sample size limitations plague many microbiome studies, reducing statistical power to detect meaningful associations. The high cost of microbiome sequencing and analysis limits the feasibility of large-scale studies. Additionally, the multiple-testing problem in analyzing hundreds or thousands of microbial features increases the risk of false-positive findings.

Standardization of microbiome research methodologies remains a challenge. Different studies use varied sampling techniques, storage conditions, DNA extraction methods, and analytical approaches. This methodological heterogeneity makes it difficult to compare results across studies or conduct meta-analyses.

Technical and Practical Challenges

The translation of microbiome research findings into clinical practice faces substantial technical hurdles. Live probiotic products require specialized manufacturing, storage, and distribution infrastructure to maintain viability. Quality control testing for microbial therapeutics is more complex and expensive than for traditional pharmaceutical products.

The development of biomarkers that predict treatment response is still in its early stages. Without reliable predictive markers, it is difficult to identify which patients are most likely to benefit from microbiome interventions. This limitation reduces the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of microbiome-based treatments.

Patient adherence to microbiome treatments can be challenging, particularly for topical applications that require frequent dosing or special storage conditions. The delayed onset of clinical effects compared to conventional treatments may also affect patient satisfaction and treatment persistence.

Clinical Practice Implications

Current Recommendations

Based on the available evidence, microbiome-based treatments should be considered investigational for most dermatological indications. Healthcare providers should exercise caution when recommending commercial microbiome products that lack robust clinical evidence. Patients interested in microbiome interventions should be counseled about the limitations of current research and the need for additional studies.

For patients with atopic dermatitis, the evidence supporting microbiome modulation with bleach baths is well established and supported by clinical guidelines. However, more experimental approaches, such as microbial transplantation, should be considered only in research settings or clinical trials.

The use of oral probiotics as adjunctive therapy for acne or atopic dermatitis may be reasonable in selected patients, given the excellent safety profile and modest evidence of benefit. However, probiotics should not replace proven first-line treatments, and patients should have realistic expectations about likely outcomes.

Patient Counseling Considerations

Healthcare providers should be prepared to address patient questions about microbiome testing and treatments. Many patients encounter marketing claims about microbiome products through direct-to-consumer advertising or social media. Providers should emphasize the importance of evidence-based decision-making and help patients evaluate the quality of information from various sources.

Patients considering microbiome interventions should understand that these treatments are generally complementary to, rather than replacements for, established therapies. The current evidence does not support discontinuing proven treatments in favor of experimental microbiome approaches.

Discussion of costs and insurance coverage is important, as insurance plans do not cover most microbiome treatments. Patients should understand the financial implications before starting treatment and consider more cost-effective alternatives when appropriate.

 

Key Takeaways

The skin microbiome represents a legitimate therapeutic target with demonstrated relevance to common dermatological conditions. Evidence quality varies substantially across different applications, with the strongest support for atopic dermatitis and modest evidence for acne treatment. Current microbiome interventions generally produce smaller effect sizes compared to established treatments but offer advantages in terms of safety and resistance profiles.

Regulatory pathways for microbiome therapeutics are evolving, with the FDA providing guidance for the development of live biotherapeutics. Clinical implementation faces challenges, including reimbursement uncertainty, provider education needs, and patient expectation management. Future research should focus on personalized approaches, combination therapies, and standardized diagnostic methods.

Healthcare providers should view microbiome-based treatments as adjunctive rather than replacement therapies for most current applications. Patient counseling should emphasize the limitations of the evidence while acknowledging potential benefits for selected individuals. The field requires continued scientific rigor to distinguish legitimate therapeutic advances from marketing claims.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between probiotics and live biotherapeutic products?

Probiotics are generally recognized as safe microorganisms that may provide health benefits, typically marketed as dietary supplements with limited regulatory oversight. Live biotherapeutic products are specifically developed as drugs to treat or prevent disease, requiring extensive clinical testing and FDA approval. The regulatory distinction affects both the evidence requirements and the types of medical claims that can be made.

Should I recommend microbiome testing for my dermatology patients?

Current evidence does not support routine microbiome testing for most dermatological conditions. While research has identified associations between microbial patterns and skin diseases, these findings have not been validated as diagnostic or prognostic tools. Professional dermatology organizations do not currently recommend microbiome testing as standard practice.

Are microbiome treatments safe for pediatric patients?

Most microbiome interventions demonstrate excellent safety profiles in clinical trials, including pediatric populations. However, long-term safety data remain limited for many products. Oral probiotics have extensive safety data in children, while topical applications require case-by-case evaluation. Parents should discuss the risks and benefits with healthcare providers before starting microbiome treatments.

How long does it take to see results from microbiome treatments?

Microbiome interventions typically require longer treatment periods compared to conventional therapies. Most clinical trials evaluate treatments over 8-12 weeks, with some benefits apparent after 4-6 weeks. The timeline for optimal effects may extend to several months, as microbial communities require time to establish and stabilize.

Can microbiome treatments be combined with conventional therapies?

Limited research suggests that combination approaches may offer synergistic benefits, particularly for acne and atopic dermatitis. However, interaction studies are lacking for most combinations. Patients should inform healthcare providers about all treatments being used and monitor for unexpected effects when combining therapies.

What should patients look for when choosing microbiome products?

Patients should prioritize products with published clinical evidence, appropriate regulatory status, and clear ingredient and dosing labeling. Third-party testing for potency and purity provides additional quality assurance. Healthcare provider guidance is recommended before starting any microbiome treatment, particularly for patients with underlying health conditions.

Will insurance cover microbiome treatments?

Most microbiome treatments are currently considered investigational and are not covered by insurance plans. Coverage decisions will likely depend on FDA approval status and demonstration of cost-effectiveness. Patients should verify coverage before starting treatment and consider the financial implications in treatment decisions.

How do I stay informed about advances in microbiome research?

Healthcare providers should follow peer-reviewed dermatology journals, professional society publications, and FDA guidance documents for evidence-based updates. Clinical trial databases provide information about ongoing research studies. Professional education programs increasingly include microbiome topics as the field continues to develop.

References

Byrd, A. L., Belkaid, Y., & Segre, J. A. (2018). The human skin microbiome. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 16(3), 143-155.

Capone, K. A., Dowd, S. E., Stamatas, G. N., & Nikolovski, J. (2011). Diversity of the human skin microbiome early in life. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 131(10), 2026-2032.

Dreno, B., Araviiskaia, E., Berardesca, E., Gontijo, G., Sanchez Viera, M., Xiang, L. F., … & Bieber, T. (2016). Microbiome in healthy skin, update for dermatologists. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 30(12), 2038-2047.

Grice, E. A., & Segre, J. A. (2011). The skin microbiome. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 9(4), 244-253.

Jung, Y. O., Jeong, H., Cho, Y., Lee, E. O., Jang, H. W., Kim, J., … & Nam, K. T. (2019). Lysates of a probiotic, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, can improve skin barrier function in a reconstructed human epidermis model. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 20(17), 4289.

Koblenzer, C. S. (2005). Cutaneous manifestations of psychiatric disease that commonly present to the dermatologist—diagnosis and treatment. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 35(1), 47-63.

Langan, S. M., Irvine, A. D., & Weidinger, S. (2020). Atopic dermatitis. The Lancet, 396(10247), 345-360.

Lee, Y. B., Byun, E. J., & Kim, H. S. (2019). Potential role of the microbiome in acne: A comprehensive review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 8(7), 987.

Myles, I. A., Williams, K. W., Reckhow, J. D., Jammeh, M. L., Pincus, N. B., Sastalla, I., … & Datta, S. K. (2016). Transplantation of human skin microbiota in models of atopic dermatitis. JCI Insight, 1(10), e86955.

Nakatsuji, T., Chen, T. H., Narala, S., Chun, K. A., Two, A. M., Yun, T., … & Gallo, R. L. (2017). Antimicrobials from human skin commensal bacteria protection against Staphylococcus aureus and are deficient in atopic dermatitis. Science Translational Medicine, 9(378), eaah4680.

Paller, A. S., Kong, H. H., Seed, P., Naik, S., Scharschmidt, T. C., Gallo, R. L., … & Segre, J. A. (2019). The microbiome in patients with atopic dermatitis. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 143(1), 26-35.

Prescott, S. L., Larcombe, D. L., Logan, A. C., West, C., Burks, W., Caraballo, L., … & Ly, N. P. (2017). The skin microbiome: impact of modern environments on skin ecology, barrier integrity, and systemic immune programming. World Allergy Organization Journal, 10(1), 29.

Simpson, E. L., Chalmers, J. R., Hanifin, J. M., Thomas, K. S., Cork, M. J., McLean, W. H. I., … & Williams, H. C. (2014). Emollient enhancement of the skin barrier from birth offers effective atopic dermatitis prevention. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 134(4), 818-823.

Tett, A., Pasolli, E., Farina, S., Truong, D. T., Asnicar, F., Zolfo, M., … & Segata, N. (2017). Unexplored diversity and strain-level structure of the skin microbiome associated with psoriasis. NPJ Biofilms and Microbiomes, 3(1), 14.

Williams, M. R., & Gallo, R. L. (2015). The role of the skin microbiome in atopic dermatitis. Current Allergy and Asthma Reports, 15(11), 65.

Zeeuwen, P. L., Kleerebezem, M., Timmerman, H. M., & Schalkwijk, J. (2013). Microbiome and skin diseases. Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 13(5), 514-520.