ReviewBiomedicines2025
Microbial Crosstalk with Therapy: Pharmacomicrobiomics in AML-One Step Closer to Personalized Medicine.
Review in Biomedicines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The silent pharmacist: Harnessing the gut microbiome to improve therapy in hematologic malignancies.Translational oncology · 2026Review
- Gut Microbiota and Acute Myeloid Leukemia: State of the Art, Clinical Signals, and Translational Opportunities.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Host-microbiome interactions in leukemia: mechanisms, treatment response, and clinical implications.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Therapeutic ecology of the fiber-microbiota-barrier axis in leukemia: resilience, immune recovery and pharmacomicrobiomics.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Harnessing Dietary Tryptophan: Bridging the Gap Between Neurobiology and Psychiatry in Depression Management.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Microbiome dysbiosis and chemotherapy resistance in acute myeloid leukemia (AML).NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increasing evidence demonstrates the mutualistic connection between the microbiome and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treatment. Drugs disrupt the microbial balance and, conversely, changes in the microbiome influence therapy. A new field, pharmacomicrobiomics, examines the role of the microbiome in pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and drug toxicity. The multimodal therapeutic management of AML, along with disease-related immunosuppression, infection, and malnutrition, creates the unique microbial profile of AML patients, in which every delicate modification plays a crucial role in pharmacotherapy. While both preclinical and real-world data have confirmed a bilateral connection between standard chemotherapy and the microbiome, the impact of novel targeted therapies and immunotherapy remains unknown. Multi-omics technologies have provided qualitative and mechanistic insights into specific compositional and functional microbial signatures associated with the outcomes of AML therapy, but require a large-scale investigation to draw reliable conclusions. In this review, we outline the role of the microbiome within the therapeutic landscape of AML, focusing on the determinants of post-treatment dysbiosis and its effects on the therapeutic response and toxicity. We explore emerging strategies for microbiota modulation, highlighting their safety and efficacy. Advances in microbiome-based approaches are an inevitable step toward precision medicine in AML. However, clinical research in a well-defined group of immunocompromised patients is needed to study their variable effects on human health and determine safety issues.
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.