ReviewCell communication and signaling : CCS2025
Postbiotics as microbial-derived therapeutics for wound healing disorders: from molecular mechanisms to future application.
Review in Cell communication and signaling : CCS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lactobacillus strains in the prevention and disruption of antimicrobial-resistance in pathogenic microbial biofilms: a review of mechanisms and clinical perspective.Folia microbiologica · 2026Review
- The dual role of the microbiome in chronic wound management.Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2026Review
- Multi-Kingdom Synergy ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Postbiotics at the interface of microbial biotechnology and therapeutics: industrial production, functional mechanisms, and clinical potentials.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Harnessing plant-derived extracellular vesicles in advanced biomaterials: from structural scaffolds to responsive systems for next-generation wound therapeutics.Burns & trauma · 2026Review
- Skin microbiome and cutaneous aging mechanisms and clinical implications.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Skin microbiota emerged as an important factor in modulating all aspects of the wound healing process, with the potential utilization of residing microbes as biological therapeutics. Commensal or probiotic bacteria represent a first layer of the cutaneous barrier protection, inhibiting detrimental effects of pathogens and modulating cutaneous immune response. In this review, we highlight the latest findings on pro-healing ability of a new subclass of probiotic-derived products named postbiotics, defined as preparations of inanimate microorganisms and/or their components that confer a health benefit on the host. By mimicking the beneficial effect of live probiotics, postbiotics have the ability to restore healthy skin microbiome through inhibition of pathogen colonization and biofilm formation. Postbiotics also regulate skin epithelial barrier function and cutaneous immune response to suppress intracellular pathogen invasion. In order to effectively restore barrier breach, postbiotics stimulate multiple cellular components of the cutaneous wound healing process. This review describes molecular and cellular aspects of host-postbiotics interactions during cutaneous wound healing and provides a current viewpoint of therapeutic potential and advantages of postbiotics application for treatment of cutaneous wound healing disorders. In the era of rising antimicrobial resistance and epidemic proportions of wound healing disorders, probiotic-based therapeutics offer safe, effective and yet underutilized solutions for unmet clinical need.
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.