| Literature DB >> 35340018 |
Barry Murphy1, Sally Grimshaw2, Michael Hoptroff2, Sarah Paterson2, David Arnold2, Andrew Cawley2, Suzanne E Adams2, Francesco Falciani3, Tony Dadd4, Richard Eccles3, Alex Mitchell5, William F Lathrop6, Diana Marrero6, Galina Yarova6, Ana Villa6, John S Bajor6, Lin Feng6, Dawn Mihalov6, Andrew E Mayes4.
Abstract
Xerosis, commonly referred to as dry skin, is a common dermatological condition affecting almost a third of the population. Successful treatment of the condition traditionally involves the application of cosmetic products facilitating the moisturisation of the skin with a range of ingredients including glycerol and fatty acids. While the effectiveness of these treatments is not in question, limited information exists on the impact on the skin microbiome following use of these products and the improvement in skin hydration. Here, we describe improvements in skin barrier properties together with increased levels of cholesterol, ceramides and long-chain fatty acids following application of Body Lotion. Concomitant alterations in the skin microbiome are also seen via 16S rRNA metataxonomics, in combination with both traditional and novel informatics analysis. Following 5 weeks of lotion use, beneficial skin bacteria are increased, with improvements in microbiome functional potential, and increases in pathways associated with biosynthesis of multiple long chain fatty acids.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35340018 PMCID: PMC8957616 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-09231-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Lotion application improved leg skin hydration and cohesivity. Skin hydration was assessed at baseline and after 5 weeks of lotion application (n = 37) via (a) visual dryness and (b) corneometer. Stratum corneum cohesivity was assessed by protein removal on (c) 5 sequential tape strips and (d) 20 sequential tape strips (n = 36). Box whisker plots showing mean and upper and lower quartiles. Connecting line with an asterisk indicates a statistically significant difference.
Levels of free fatty acids.
| Fatty acid | Baseline average | Standard deviation | Week 5 average | Standard deviation | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C14:0 | 2.63 | 2.54 | 4.99 | 3.07 | < 0.001 |
| C16:0 | 14.90 | 7.84 | 56.74 | 34.44 | < 0.001 |
| C16:1 | 1.73 | 1.81 | 1.77 | 1.22 | 0.316 |
| C18:0 | 10.51 | 4.43 | 47.17 | 26.43 | < 0.001 |
| C18:1 | 8.46 | 8.28 | 9.20 | 8.60 | 0.184 |
| C18:2 | 3.64 | 2.07 | 4.71 | 2.32 | 0.002 |
| C20:0 | 0.67 | 0.16 | 1.47 | 0.64 | < 0.001 |
| C22:0 | 1.29 | 0.29 | 1.38 | 0.29 | 0.086 |
| C22:1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.44 |
| C24:0 | 4.42 | 1.11 | 4.29 | 1.25 | 0.902 |
Average levels are given for each fatty acid species measured in pmol/µg. A mixed effects model was used to assess the differences between timepoints.
Levels of ceramide measured per ceramide class.
| Ceramide class | Baseline average | Standard deviation | Week 5 average | Standard deviation | Fold change | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AdS | 0.23 | 0.07 | 0.31 | 0.09 | 1.36 | 0.003 |
| AH | 0.39 | 0.10 | 0.54 | 0.14 | 1.38 | 0.001 |
| AP | 0.25 | 0.09 | 0.35 | 0.12 | 1.42 | 0.01 |
| AS | 0.16 | 0.05 | 0.22 | 0.06 | 1.39 | 0.002 |
| EOdS | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.26 | 0.68 |
| EOH | 0.17 | 0.06 | 0.25 | 0.09 | 1.53 | < 0.001 |
| EOP | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.97 | 0.71 |
| EOS | 0.23 | 0.08 | 0.28 | 0.09 | 1.22 | 0.03 |
| NdS | 0.30 | 0.07 | 0.36 | 0.07 | 1.2 | 0.06 |
| NH | 0.47 | 0.15 | 0.63 | 0.22 | 1.35 | 0.004 |
| NP | 0.35 | 0.10 | 0.45 | 0.10 | 1.27 | 0.024 |
| NS | 0.28 | 0.09 | 0.38 | 0.12 | 1.34 | 0.001 |
Average levels are given for each ceramide class in pmol/µg protein. Fold change was calculated for post intervention relative to baseline values with paired Wilcoxon testing used to assess the differences.
Figure 2Skin hydration correlates with fatty acid and ceramide levels. Scatter plots of corneometer readings of skin hydration vs. the total level of FFA (a) and total ceramides (b). Blue and red circles represent untreated and after 5 weeks of product application. The solid line represents the optimal fit from simple linear regression analysis, with the correlation coefficient r and p-value displayed. Statistical significance was considered as p-value < 0.05.
Figure 3Skin microbiome assessment at baseline and after 5 weeks of product application. Box and whisker plots summarising the dominant species at (a) baseline and at (b) Week 5. (c) LEfSe analysis of differential microbiome function identified at baseline and Week 5. qPCR analysis of (d) total bacterial count and (e) Staphylococcus epidermidis at baseline and post intervention.
Figure 4Community co-occurrence network analysis. (a) Average community networks for all samples at baseline and following 5 weeks of application, with associated network metrics. (b) Example statistical analysis of network mean degree metric following bootstrapping between samples at baseline and post intervention. No metrics used showed differences between pre- and post-application using average network approaches. (c) Selected indicative examples of single sample network from individual subject at baseline and post intervention. (d) Network analysis metrics between networks at baseline and post intervention.
Figure 5CONSORT 2010 flow diagram. Application of lotion application to legs of subjects classified as having cosmetic dry skin.