Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25408893›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2014

Shaping the oral microbiota through intimate kissing.

Remco Kort, Martien Caspers, Astrid van de Graaf, Wim van Egmond, Bart Keijser, Guus Roeselers

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

84 citing papers in PubMed, 209 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. A comparative approach to the evolution of kissing.Evolution and human behavior : official journal of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Inter-kingdom communication and the sympoietic way of life.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024
    Article
  17. Ecology and evolution of the social microbiome.Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Remco KortTNO Microbiology and Systems Biology, Utrechtseweg 48, 3704 HE Zeist, The Netherlands ; Micropia, Natura Artis Magistra, Plantage Kerklaan 38-40, 1018 CZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands ; VU University Amsterdam, Molecular Cell Physiology, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martien CaspersTNO Microbiology and Systems Biology, Utrechtseweg 48, 3704 HE Zeist, The Netherlands.
Astrid van de GraafMicropia, Natura Artis Magistra, Plantage Kerklaan 38-40, 1018 CZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wim van EgmondMicropia, Natura Artis Magistra, Plantage Kerklaan 38-40, 1018 CZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bart KeijserTNO Microbiology and Systems Biology, Utrechtseweg 48, 3704 HE Zeist, The Netherlands.
Guus RoeselersTNO Microbiology and Systems Biology, Utrechtseweg 48, 3704 HE Zeist, The Netherlands.
Pension Fund for Care and Well-Being · NLVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe variation of microbial communities associated with the human body can be the cause of many factors, including the human genetic makeup, diet, age, surroundings, and sexual behavior. In this study, we investigated the effects of intimate kissing on the oral microbiota of 21 couples by self-administered questionnaires about their past kissing behavior and by the evaluation of tongue and salivary microbiota samples in a controlled kissing experiment. In addition, we quantified the number of bacteria exchanged during intimate kissing by the use of marker bacteria introduced through the intake of a probiotic yoghurt drink by one of the partners prior to a second intimate kiss.

resultsSimilarity indices of microbial communities show that average partners have a more similar oral microbiota composition compared to unrelated individuals, with by far most pronounced similarity for communities associated with the tongue surface. An intimate kiss did not lead to a significant additional increase of the average similarity of the oral microbiota between partners. However, clear correlations were observed between the similarity indices of the salivary microbiota of couples and self-reported kiss frequencies, and the reported time passed after the latest kiss. In control experiments for bacterial transfer, we identified the probiotic Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium marker bacteria in most kiss receivers, corresponding to an average total bacterial transfer of 80 million bacteria per intimate kiss of 10 s.

conclusionsThis study indicates that a shared salivary microbiota requires a frequent and recent bacterial exchange and is therefore most pronounced in couples with relatively high intimate kiss frequencies. The microbiota on the dorsal surface of the tongue is more similar among partners than unrelated individuals, but its similarity does not clearly correlate to kissing behavior, suggesting an important role for specific selection mechanisms resulting from a shared lifestyle, environment, or genetic factors from the host. Furthermore, our findings imply that some of the collective bacteria among partners are only transiently present, while others have found a true niche on the tongue's surface allowing long-term colonization.

Indexed as

Intimate kissLactobacillusNext generation sequencingOral microbiotaSalivaStreptococcusTongue

Identifiers

PMID25408893
PMCPMC4233210
OpenAlexW2044709577

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.