Back

Host recovery after skin barrier disruption is individual-specific and associated with microbial functions

Ravikrishnan, A.; Wearne, S.; Li, X.; Balasundaram, G.; Mohamed Naim, A. N.; Wijaya, I.; Tay, M. Q.; Yap, A. A. M.; Rajarahm, P.; Binte Alui, T. N.; Yi, C. T. K.; Tan, W. L.; Ong, Y. Z.; Ho, C.; Bi, R.; Binte Ebrahim Attia, A.; Zhang, R.; Thng, S.; Brun, C.; Kurfurst, R.; Nizard, C.; Pays, K.; Olivo, M.; Dawson, T. L.; Common, J.; Lim, Y. S.; Nagarajan, N.

2026-03-27 genomics
10.64898/2026.03.25.714117 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The human skin is repeatedly exposed to mechanical and environmental stress, particularly in common skin diseases such as eczema, and yet the determinants of recovery remain poorly understood. Using longitudinal, multimodal profiling of skin physiology, structure (Raman spectroscopy), and microbial communities (shotgun metagenomics), we investigated in a human cohort (n=36 subjects, x2 sites, x6 timepoints) how host-microbe interactions could jointly shape recovery. Despite baseline variability in physiological parameters, we established that our protocol enables a defined disruption of the stratum corneum. While recovery trajectories for host attributes were notably consistent across age groups and body sites, individual-specific differences in recovery timelines were observed. To assess the role of the skin microbiome, several key time-dependent changes in microbial species were identified including enrichment of select Cutibacterium and Staphylococcus species and depletion of Corynebacterium and Malassezia species. Clustering of microbiome stability profiles across subjects and sites identified 6 distinct groups which associate with varying host-recovery patterns and microbial functions. Finally, joint hazards modelling of recovery timing revealed significant contributions from microbial taxa, functions and stability groups, highlighting the under-appreciated role of host-microbial interactions in response to skin stress and in the recovery process.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 1%
28.4%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 13%
7.0%
3
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 12%
6.5%
4
npj Biofilms and Microbiomes
56 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.0%
5
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 12%
4.1%
50% of probability mass above
6
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 19%
3.7%
7
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.1%
8
Acta Biomaterialia
85 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
9
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 14%
1.9%
10
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.8%
11
Cell Reports Methods
141 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
Journal of Investigative Dermatology
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
13
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.7%
14
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 14%
1.7%
15
Nature Biotechnology
147 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.5%
16
JCI Insight
241 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
17
PNAS Nexus
147 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
18
Matrix Biology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
19
Nature Genetics
240 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
20
Science Translational Medicine
111 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
21
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
22
Molecular Systems Biology
142 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
23
Cell Host & Microbe
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
24
Journal of Advanced Research
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
25
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
26
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
27
The ISME Journal
194 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
28
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
29
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.5%
30
Cell Systems
167 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.5%