ReviewExperimental dermatology2026
A Possible Role of Mycobiome in the Pathophysiology of Acne: Structured Narrative Review and Perspectives.
Review in Experimental dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Acne vulgaris pathogenesis involves complex interactions between sebum hypersecretion, follicular hyperkeratinisation, microbial colonisation and inflammatory cascades. While the bacterial microbiome has been extensively studied, the role of the skin mycobiome, particularly lipophilic Malassezia species, remains less clearly defined in acne-prone sites. To evaluate evidence for skin mycobiome involvement in acne pathogenesis, a structured narrative review was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE and PMC, synthesising findings from 14 cross-sectional studies involving 1650 participants from diverse geographic and ancestry backgrounds. Across sequencing and culture-based studies, Malassezia was the dominant fungal genus on healthy as well as acne-prone skin; species-level data most often identified M. restricta and M. globosa, with occasional reports of M. furfur. Although significant variations were observed in fungal abundance, discrepancies exist between studies due to differences in study design, sampling methods (surface swabs vs. comedone or pustule contents vs. pore strips), culture media (lipid-supplemented vs. standard), molecular target (ITS1 rDNA vs. other loci) and population demographics. Multiple sequencing studies did not detect significant fungal alpha/beta-diversity differences between acne and non-acne skin while confirming Malassezia species dominance. One study highlighted the potential underdiagnosis of Malassezia folliculitis in acne patients, suggesting that misdiagnosis may occur due to overlapping clinical presentations. Future studies should predefine primary outcomes, adjust for multiplicity, report sampling depth (surface vs. follicular), specify fungal rDNA region sequenced, use specific lipid-supplemented media for Malassezia isolation when culturing, co-profile bacteria and fungi, and add systematic clinical assessment of Malassezia folliculitis.
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.