ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Genetic Causal Association Between Skin Microbiota and Biological Aging: Evidence From a Mendelian Randomization Analysis.
Article in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mendelian randomization analysis of immune cell traits and their association with cervical cancer risk.Discover oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe skin microbiota, a complex community of microorganisms residing on the skin, plays a crucial role in maintaining skin health and overall homeostasis. Recent research has suggested that alterations in the composition and function of the skin microbiota may influence the aging process. However, the causal relationships between specific skin microbiota and biological aging remain unclear. Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis provides a powerful tool to explore these causal links by utilizing genetic variants as instrumental variables, thereby minimizing confounding factors and reverse causality that often complicate observational studies.
methodsWe utilized a two-sample MR approach with population-based cross-sectional data from two German cohorts, KORA FF4 (n = 324) and PopGen (n = 273). In total, GWAS summary data from 1656 skin samples and datasets on accelerated biological age were analyzed to investigate the causal relationship between skin microbiota and accelerated biological aging. The primary analysis was performed using the inverse variance weighted (IVW) method with random effects and was further supported by MR-Egger regression, Cochran's Q test, and a range of sensitivity analyses.
resultsThe MR analysis revealed that for biological age acceleration (BioageAccel), the IVW analysis identified protective effects from certain skin microbiota, including Alphaproteobacteria_Dry (p = 0.046), Asv033_sebaceous (p = 0.043), Burkholderiales_Moist (p = 0.008), and Proteobacteria_Moist (p = 0.042). Similar protective effects were observed for Burkholderiales_Moist (p = 0.045) and Proteobacteria_Moist (p = 0.012) in the weighted median analysis. In contrast, Paracoccus_Moist (p = 0.013) and Proteobacteria_Sebaceous (p = 0.005) were associated with accelerated aging. When using PhenoAge acceleration as the outcome, the IVW analysis linked skin microbiota like Asv005_Dry (p = 0.026), ASV039_Dry (p = 0.003), Betaproteobacteria_Sebaceous (p = 0.038), and Chryseobacterium_Moist (p = 0.013) with accelerated aging. The weighted median analysis supported these findings and also identified protective effects from ASV011_Dry (p = 0.021), ASV023_Dry (p = 0.040), Bacteroidales_Dry (p = 0.022), Enhydrobacter_Moist (p = 0.038), Proteobacteria_Moist (p = 0.002), and Rothia_Moist (p = 0.038).
conclusionsThis two-sample MR study reveals potential causal relationships between skin microbiota and aging. However, to confirm these findings, further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.