Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Recently, multiple studies regarding the human microbiota and its role on the development of disease have emerged. Current research suggests that the nasal cavity is a major reservoir for opportunistic pathogens, which can then spread to other sections of the respiratory tract and be involved in the development of conditions such as allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, asthma, pneumonia, and otitis media. However, our knowledge of how nasal microbiota changes originate nasopharyngeal and respiratory conditions is still incipient. Herein, we describe how the nasal microbiome in healthy individuals varies with age and explore the effect of nasal microbiota changes in a range of infectious and immunological conditions. We also describe the potential health benefits of human microbiota modulation through probiotic use, both in disease prevention and as adjuvant therapy. Current research suggests that patients with different chronic rhinosinusitis phenotypes possess distinct nasal microbiota profiles, which influence immune response and may be used in the future as biomarkers of disease progression. Probiotic intervention may also have a promising role in the prevention and adjunctive treatment of acute respiratory tract infections and allergic rhinitis, respectively. However, further studies are needed to define the role of probiotics in the chronic rhinosinusitis.

Keywords

allergic rhinitis chronic rhinosinusitis dysbiosis microbiome microbiota nose probiotics

Introduction

The human microbiome consists of the collective genomes of commensal, symbiotic, and pathogenic microorganisms living on the human body and plays a key role in health and immunity.¹ Each body habitat harbors a characteristic bacterial community,²^,³ which is not constant throughout life, but rather changes with age.⁴ The human nasal cavity harbors commensal bacteria that suppress opportunistic pathogen colonization by competing for limited space and nutrients and can even produce toxic compounds that directly inhibit or kill competing microorganisms.⁵ As depicted in Figure 1, many environmental factors that have been shown to modulate the composition of the nose microbiome.^6–8 However, the distinction between commensal and pathogenic bacteria is often ambiguous, as some microorganisms, such as Staphylococcus aureus, can be both commensal and a versatile opportunistic pathogen, causative of significant morbidity and even mortality.^9–11

Figure 1.

Factors that modulate nasal microbiota throughout life.

Dysbiosis, a dysfunction or imbalance in the microbial communities, can therefore greatly impact human health.¹² Research into the bacterial communities of the nasal cavity has revealed that the nose harbors opportunistic pathogens, which can then spread to other sections of the respiratory tract and be involved in the development of conditions such as allergic rhinitis (AR), chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), acute respiratory tract infections (ARTI), otitis media (OM), and asthma.¹³^,¹⁴ This review aims to describe how changes in the nasal microbiota and microbiome are linked to several immune system disorders and infectious diseases. We also aim to define how probiotics can increase health through the modulation of the nasal microbiota and microbiome, both as adjuvant therapy and in prevention.

The Nasal Microbiome

Nasal Microbiome and CRS

Even though the causal role of bacterial infection in the development of CRS is yet to be proven, it is hypothesized that bacterial infection triggers an inflammatory response within the sinus cavity, with resulting chronic changes and symptoms.⁶^,¹⁵ Previous descriptive studies have shown that the nasal microbiome of CRS patients most frequently includes coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and S. aureus.^16–21

More recently, Lal et al. compared the microbiota of the middle meatus and inferior meatus CRS patients with and without nasal polyps and in healthy controls. They found that samples collected from the middle meatus of CRS patients without nasal polyps were enriched in Streptococcus, Haemophilus, and Fusobacterium spp. but exhibited loss of bacterial diversity in comparison to healthy controls. Samples collected from the middle meatus of CRS patients with nasal polyps were enriched in Staphylococcus, Alloiococcus, and Corynebacterium spp.²²

Cope et al. used 16S rRNA gene sequencing to analyze samples collected during endoscopic sinus surgery in CRS patients and healthy controls and determined that CRS patients can be divided into distinct subgroups, with specific patterns of bacterial colonization, uniquely enriched gene pathways and distinct host immune responses.²³ The subgroup predominantly containing Streptococcaceae evoked pro-inflammatory, T_H1 responses and mostly encoded an ansamycin biosynthesis gene pathway.²³ The subgroup mainly containing Pseudomonadaceae also evoked pro-inflammatory, T_H1 responses, but encoded tryptophan metabolism gene pathways.²³ The subgroup predominantly containing Corynebacteriaceae encoded peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ signaling pathways, with enhanced IL-5 expression and significantly increased incidence of nasal polyps.²³ These findings support the idea that the nose microbiome in CRS patients can not only influence CRS phenotype but also modulate immune response. As summarized in Table 1, nasal dysbiosis plays a role in the development of CRS and the formation of nasal polyps, but further studies are required to clarify the pathophysiologic mechanisms involved.

Table 1.

Nasal Microbiota Alterations in CRS Patients.

Disorder	Nasal Microbiota Alterations in Comparison to Healthy Individuals
Chronic rhinosinusitis
In general	↑ Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus¹⁶^,¹⁷^,¹⁹
	↑ Pseudomonas aeruginosa¹⁶^,¹⁷^,¹⁹
	↑ Staphylococcus aureus¹⁶^,¹⁷^,¹⁹
	↓ Bacterial diversity⁶
With nasal polyps	↑↑ Staphylococcus aureus²⁰
	↑ Alloiococcus spp.²²
	↑ Corynebacterium spp.²²
	↓ Bacterial diversity²⁰
Without nasal polyps	↑ Staphylococcus spp.²⁰
	↑ Streptococcus spp.²²
	↑ Haemophilus spp.²²
	↑ Fusobacterium spp.²²
	↓ Bacterial diversity²²
	↓ Prevotella spp.²⁰
With asthma	↑ Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus²¹
	↑ Staphylococcus aureus²¹
	↓ Bacterial diversity²¹

Nasal Microbiome and Asthma

Although the relationship between nasal microbiota and asthma phenotypes and severity is still poorly defined,^24–26 recent studies have demonstrated that the nasal microbiota plays a significant role in the onset, development, and severity of asthma.^27–30 Culture-independent sequencing methods have shown that the composition of the nasal microbiome is different in adult patients with exacerbated asthma, nonexacerbated asthma, and healthy controls.^31–33 In comparison with healthy individuals, the nasal microbiota of asthma patients was enriched with taxa from Bacteroidetes and Proteobacteria, with Prevotella buccalis and Gardnerella vaginalis in particular being more abundant in asthma patients.³³ P. buccalis, G. vaginalis, Dialister invisus, and Alkanindiges hongkongensis species were differentially abundant depending on asthma activity, and metagenomic inference revealed differences in bacterial glycerolipid metabolism.³³

Teo et al. investigated the nasopharynx microbiome during the first year of life and found that the nasopharynx microbiome was a determinant of risk of future asthma development and severity of accompanying inflammatory symptoms, with early asymptomatic colonization with Streptococcus in particular being a strong predictor for the future development of asthma.³⁰ Pérez-Losada et al. also found that the composition and structure of the nasal microbiota of children and adolescents with asthma was significantly different than that of healthy controls and varied between different asthma phenotypic clusters.³⁴

In a separate study, Pérez-Losada et al. used targeted 16S rRNA sequencing methods to characterize the nasopharyngeal microbiota in asthmatic children and found that the nasal microbiome was dominated by Moraxella, Staphylococcus, Corynebacterium, Haemophilus, Fusobacterium, Prevotella, and Dolosigranulum, which were different from those described in the nasopharynx of adults.²⁹ Further investigation is needed to determine how the nose and nasopharynx microbiome ultimately influences asthma pathophysiology and to develop custom-fit treatment options, which target nasal microbiome dysbiosis in asthma patients.

Nasal Microbiome and AR

Although there is still limited research into the relationship between nasal microbiome dysbiosis and the development of AR, the nasal microbiome potentially holds an important role in the modulation of localized immune responses, pathophysiology, and development of AR. Choi et al. studied the nasal microbiota before and during corresponding pollen seasons in seasonal AR (SAR) patients and healthy controls.³⁵ Samples were collected from the middle meatus and vestibule using endoscopy. During pollen season, there was a correlation between increase in symptoms and nasal eosinophils in SAR patients and a significant increase bacterial biodiversity in the middle meatus compared with healthy controls.³⁵ This pattern is distinct from that found in CRS patients, where disease severity seems to correlate with a decrease in bacterial biodiversity. No significant changes were found in the nasal vestibule.³⁵ Lal et al. compared the microbiota of the middle meatus and inferior meatus AR patients and in healthy controls.²² However, Lal et al. were unable to reproduce the findings of increased biodiversity in AR patients compared to healthy controls, likely due to smaller sample size and not collecting the nasal samples during a specific allergy season.²² Further research is needed to fully comprehend the role of nasal microbiome dysbiosis in AR.

Nasal Microbiome and ARTI

Multiple studies have progressively defined the impact of the nose microbiome in host immunity and protection against opportunistic pathogens, such as S. aureus, rhinovirus, and influenza virus.¹^,^36–38 The interaction between the influenza virus and epithelial cells is mediated by complex bacterial communities, among other factors, which regulate innate and adaptive host immune response and influence risk of infection.¹^,³⁶ In turn, this host immune response against respiratory viruses can provoke protective changes in the respiratory and nasopharyngeal microbiome.³⁹^,⁴⁰

The influenza A virus infection has also been shown to modify the community structure of the microbiome, with an increase in pathogenic bacteria.³⁶^,⁴¹ Salk et al. conducted a human experimental trial, in which healthy adults were administered intranasal live attenuated influenza vaccine.⁴² A significant increase in taxa richness was observed as well as a variation in influenza-specific immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibody production.⁴² De Lastours et al. showed that adults with influenza virus infection expressed increased nasal carriage of Streptococcus pneumoniae and S. aureus.⁴³ Specifically, S. pneumoniae has been shown to establish a mutually beneficial relationship with the influenza virus, with studies suggesting that influenza A virus infection can enhance the transmission of S. pneumoniae.⁴⁴^,⁴⁵ Wen et al. found that the nasopharyngeal microbiota of patients with influenza A virus infection differed from healthy controls, with influenza A virus patients showing a predominance of Streptococcus, Phyllobacterium, Moraxella, Staphylococcus, Corynebacterium, and Dolosigranulum.⁴⁶ In turn, S. pneumoniae can secrete proteases that activate the viral hemagglutinin and even modulate the host innate immune response of the host in order to facilitate influenza A virus infection.⁴⁴^,⁴⁷

Other viruses are also associated with changes in the nose microbiome. Fan et al. observed an increase in pneumococcal density following rhinovirus infection.⁴⁸ Wolter et al. found that following a respiratory virus infection by influenza virus, adenovirus, or rhinovirus, there was an elevation in colonization density by S. pneumoniae and therefore an increased risk of invasive pneumococcal pneumonia.⁴⁹

The nasal microbiome can also influence and modulate infection by other viruses. Rosas-Salazar et al. found significant differences in the taxonomic composition and abundance between infants infected with human rhinovirus and respiratory syncytial virus.⁵⁰ Toivonen et al. found that the nasopharyngeal microbiota influenced infection by different rhinovirus species.⁵¹ Infants with a predominant Haemophilus microbiota profile were more likely to have infection by rhinovirus-A species, whereas infants with a predominant Moraxella microbiota profile were more likely to have infection by rhinovirus-C species.⁵¹ Mansbach et al. found an association between a predominant Haemophilus nasopharyngeal microbiota and delayed clearance of respiratory syncytial virus in infants hospitalized for bronchiolitis.⁵² As shown in Table 2, nasal bacterial communities influence host susceptibility to ARTI, emphasizing the need to develop novel prophylactic and therapeutic probiotic interventions.

Table 2.

Nasal Microbiota Alterations in Patients With ARTI.

Disorder	Nasal Microbiota Alterations in Comparison to Healthy Individuals
Acute respiratory tract infections
Influenza A virus	↑ Pathogenic bacteria³⁶^,⁴¹^,⁴²
	↑ Streptococcus pneumoniae⁴³
	↑ Staphylococcus aureus⁴³^,⁴⁶
	↑ Phyllobacterium spp.⁴⁶
	↑ Moraxella spp.⁴⁶
	↑ Corynebacterium spp.⁴⁶
	↑ Dolosigranulum spp.⁴⁶
	↓ Pseudomonas spp.⁴⁵
Rhinovirus-A	↑ Streptococcus pneumoniae⁴⁸^,⁴⁹
Rhinovirus-A	↑ Haemophilus spp.⁵¹
Rhinovirus-C	↑ Streptococcus pneumoniae⁴⁸^,⁴⁹
Rhinovirus-C	↑ Moraxella spp.⁵¹
Adenovirus	↑ Streptococcus pneumoniae⁴⁹
Respiratory syncytial virus	↑ Haemophilus spp.⁵¹

Nasal Microbiome and OM

As displayed in Table 3, the nose microbiome influences the development of OM, with an increase in carriage of pathogenic bacteria elevating the risk of invasive disease, probably due to bacterial migration to the middle ear.¹⁰^,⁵³^,⁵⁴ Hilty et al. studied the nasopharyngeal microbiota of 163 infants with or without acute OM using nasopharyngeal swabs and multiplexed pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA and found that commensal bacteria were less prevalent in infants with acute OM in comparison to healthy controls.⁵⁵ Moraxella, Streptococcus, and Pasteurella spp. were most frequent in acute OM patients in comparison to healthy controls.⁵⁵

Table 3.

Nasal Microbiota Alterations in Patients With OM.

Disorder	Nasal Microbiota Alterations in Comparison to Healthy Individuals
Otitis media
In general	↑ Moraxella spp.⁵⁶^,⁵⁹
	↑ Streptococcus pneumoniae⁵⁶^,⁵⁷^,⁵⁹
	↑ Pasteurella spp.⁵⁶
	↑ Haemophilus spp.⁵⁷^,⁵⁹
	↑ Actinomyces spp.⁵⁷
	↑ Rothia spp.⁵⁷
	↑ Neisseria spp.⁵⁷
	↑ Veillonella spp.⁵⁷
	↓ Commensal bacteria⁵⁶
	↓ Bacterial diversity⁵⁷^,⁵⁹
	↓ Lactococcus spp.⁵⁷
	↓ Propionibacterium spp.⁵⁷
	↓ Corynebacterium spp.⁵⁷
	↓ Dolosigranulum spp.⁵⁷
	↓ Staphylococcus spp.⁵⁷
	↓ Pseudomonas spp.⁵⁹
	↓Myroides spp.⁵⁹
	↓ Yersinia spp.⁵⁹
	↓ Sphingomonas spp.⁵⁹
Recurrent	↑ Gemella spp.⁵⁸
	↑ Neisseria spp.⁵⁸
	↓ Corynebacterium spp.⁵⁸
	↓ Dolosigranulum spp.⁵⁸

Laufer et al. found that S. pneumoniae colonization was significantly more frequent in children with OM, and nasal colonization with Haemophilus, Actinomyces, Rothia, Neisseria, and Veillonella was also associated with an increased risk of OM.⁵⁶ On the other hand, colonization with Corynebacterium and Dolosigranulum and Propionibacterium, Lactococcus, and Staphylococcus was associated with a decreased risk of pneumococcal colonization and OM.⁵⁶ Recently, Lappan et al. found that the nasopharyngeal microbiomes of patients with recurrent acute OM and healthy controls were distinct, with Gemella and Neisseria being more prevalent in the nasopharynx of patients with recurrent acute OM in comparison with healthy controls and Corynebacterium and Dolosigranulum being significantly more abundant in the nasopharynx of controls.⁵⁷

Chonmaitree et al. analyzed 971 nasopharyngeal samples collected during episodes of acute OM and found an increased abundance in 3 otopathogen genera: Moraxella, Haemophilus, and Streptococcus, with lower bacterial diversity.⁵⁸ During acute OM episodes, there were increases in abundance of otopathogen genera and decreases in Pseudomonas, Myroides, Yersinia, and Sphingomonas.⁵⁸ Further studies are needed to define how probiotics could be used to modulate the nasal and nasopharyngeal microbiome and protect against OM.

The Role of Probiotic Intervention in Nasal Microbiome Dysbiosis

Probiotic Intervention in AR

Even though the role of dysbiosis in the pathophysiology of AR is poorly understood, there have been promising developments in the use of probiotics as adjuvant treatment. Ishida et al. found that the administration of Lactobacillus acidophilus 92 in fermented milk significantly improved nasal symptom scores in participants with perennial AR (PAR), in comparison with the administration of milk without lactic acid bacteria.⁵⁹ In a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized study with 60 children with PAR, half were treated with the anti-histamine agent levocetirizine, together with Lactobacillus paracasei, and half were treated with levocetirizine with placebo. The group treated with L. paracasei reported an improvement in pediatric rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life scores and a significant improvement in nasal itching and sneezing scores in comparison with the placebo.⁶⁰

Jerzynska et al. studied the effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and vitamin D supplementation on the immunologic effectiveness of grass-specific sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in children with AR with sensitization to grass pollen. They found that there was a decrease in the symptom-medication score in all groups treated with 5-grass SLIT as well as a significant increase in CD4+CD25+Fox3+ cells in the children receiving SLIT with L. rhamnosus, compared with children treated with SLIT and vitamin D, resulting in a better immunologic response.⁶¹ These results suggest that probiotics do have a potential important role in the adjunctive treatment of PAR and SAR.

Probiotic Intervention in CRS

In contrast with AR, current research into the use of probiotics in the adjunctive treatment of CRS is limited and does not support a prominent role of probiotics in the treatment of CRS. In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial by Mukerji et al., there were no significant clinical improvements in sinonasal quality-of-life scores with oral administration of a preparation containing L. rhamnosus in 77 patients with CRS.⁶² Furthermore, the topical administration of honeybee lactic acid bacteria (HLAB), a mixture of 9 Lactobacillus spp. and 4 Bifidobacterium spp., directly into the nasal passage was safe and well tolerated⁶³ but did not produce any changes in symptoms, inflammatory biomarkers in nasal lavage fluids, or commensal bacteria of the nasal cavity in patients with CRS without nasal polyps.⁶⁴ Although further research is needed in this field, probiotics are currently not recommended in the adjuvant treatment of CRS.

Probiotic Intervention in Respiratory Tract Infections

Given the significant role of the nose and throat microbiome in the susceptibility to influenza virus infection,¹^,³⁶^,³⁸ there has been some investigation into the potential role of probiotics in the modulation of the nasal microbiome and innate and adaptive host immune responses. Salk et al. measured changes to the nasal microbiome in young adults who received intranasal administration of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) and found that LAIV altered the nasal microbiome, with increased taxa richness and variations in influenza-specific IgA antibody production.⁴²

Furthermore, molecular profiling studies have recently revealed that species-specific interactions play an important role in avoiding S. aureus nasal colonization and persistence.⁵ Specifically, the Corynebacterium genus interacts with S. aureus in the nasal cavity⁶⁵ and artificial inoculation of Corynebacterium pseudodiphtheriticum into the nasal cavity appears to eradicate S. aureus nasal colonization.^66–68 Hardy et al. determined that this is because C. pseudodiphtheriticum selectively targets S. aureus for killing, mainly through Agr QS, its primary virulence factor. This may confer selective advantage to S. aureus strains deficient in Agr QS, inducing a switch from a pathogenic state to a commensal state.⁵ Further studies are needed to characterize the therapeutic use of C. pseudodiphtheriticum-derived factors as bactericidal agents against S. aureus.

The effects of a 1-week administration of a probiotic product composed of a combination of Streptococcus salivarius 24SMBc and Streptococcus oralis 89a, on the nostril microbiota were evaluated using a next-generation sequencing approach. A significant decrease in S. aureus abundance was detected immediately after the probiotic administration, and there was an increase in the total number of beneficial microorganisms which could limit the overgrowth of potential pathogens.⁶⁹

In 2 separate randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, newborns who were administered prebiotics and probiotics had a significantly lower incidence of respiratory tract infections compared to the placebo.⁷⁰^,⁷¹ Specifically, the incidence of rhinovirus-induced episodes, which comprised 80% of all respiratory tract infections, was found to be significantly lower in the prebiotic and probiotic (groups compared with the placebo group.⁷⁰ In another randomized symbiotic trial, 4556 infants were administered an oral preparation containing Lactobacillus plantarum. Significant reductions were observed in the incidence of respiratory tract infections.⁷¹

There are also encouraging results with regard to immunity enhancement through intranasal vaccines in experiments conducted on animals. The intranasal administration of Bacillus subtilis vaccines in the nasal mucosa and tonsils of piglets resulted in an increase in the number of dendritic cells, immunoglobulin A⁺ B cells and T cells in the nasal mucosa and tonsils, as well as an increase in toll-like receptor (TLR)-2 and TLR-9 mRNA expression. This lays the foundation for further study into the intranasal administration of B. subtilis in humans to enhance the immunity of human nasal mucosa to respiratory diseases.⁷²

Conclusion

In healthy individuals, the nasal microbiome varies with age and is shaped by various factors. Interestingly, pathological conditions of the respiratory tract seem to be associated with a reduction in nasal microbiota biodiversity, a feature also observed in the gut. Nasal microbiome dysbiosis has been implicated in the pathophysiology of many diseases, including CRS, asthma, AR, bronchiolitis, the flu, and OM, although further studies are needed to further characterize the role of the nasal dysbiosis in AR. Current research suggests that the nasal microbiota profile influences immune response and may modulate CRS phenotype. Further studies are needed to explore the use potential use of the nasal microbiota profile as a prognostic tool in clinical practice.

However, when considering the potential clinical use of the characterization of the nasal microbiome profile, it is important to take into consideration the wide array of methodologies available, with distinct operating costs and potentially conflicting results. For instance, polymerase chain reaction methods, which are relatively cheap, can only identify a relatively small array of genes, in comparison with more expensive next-generation sequencing, a high throughput methodology with broad range applications which could allow for a more complete characterization of the microbiome profile in different individuals. Although these methods could be useful in clinical practice, allowing for personalized and optimized patient treatment and follow-up, the operational costs need to be taken into account, and presently compromise the use of these techniques as disease biomarkers and prognostic factors in patient care. Furthermore, the possibility of changes in nasal microbiome richness and diversity being secondary to inflammation in diseases such as CRS, AR, and ARTI must also be taken into consideration.

Currently, studies suggest that probiotic intervention may have a promising role in the adjunctive treatment of PAR and SAR, with improvements in immune response, symptom scores and quality of life, and in the prevention of ARTI, through species-specific interactions and immunological modulation. Further studies are needed to fully characterize how these interventions can be applied in clinical practice. However, it remains unclear whether probiotics could have a role in the treatment of CRS.

Footnotes

Author Contributions

P. B. contributed to concept and design. S. D.-P. was involved in search, analysis, and inclusion/exclusion of papers as well as drafting of the manuscript. All authors contributed to critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. P. B. and R. S. contributed to supervision.

Authors’ Note

Images are created using Servier Medical ART®.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by our institutional review board.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Norte Portugal Regional Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)—Bioengineered therapies for infectious disease and tissue regeneration (grant number NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-0000012).

Statement of Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects.

Statement of Informed Consent

There are no human subjects in this article and informed consent is not applicable.

ORCID iD

Sofia Dimitri-Pinheiro

References

Abt

Osborne

Monticelli

, et al. Commensal bacteria calibrate the activation threshold of innate antiviral immunity. Immunity. 2012; 37(1):158–170.

Costello

Lauber

Hamady

Fierer

Gordon

Knight

Bacterial community variation in human body habitats across space and time. Science (New York, NY). 2009; 326(5960):1694–1697.

Huttenhower

Gevers

Knight

, et al. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature. 2012; 486(7402):207–214.

Thomas

Izard

Walsh

, et al. The host microbiome regulates and maintains human health: a primer and perspective for non-microbiologists. Cancer Res. 2017; 77(8):1783–1812.

Hardy

Dickey

Plaut

, et al. Corynebacterium pseudodiphtheriticum exploits Staphylococcus aureus virulence components in a novel polymicrobial defense strategy. mBio. 2019; 10(1):e02491–18.

Rawls

Ellis

AK.

The microbiome of the nose.

Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2019; 122(1):17–24.

Man

de Steenhuijsen Piters

Bogaert

The microbiota of the respiratory tract: gatekeeper to respiratory health. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017; 15(5):259–270.

Arrieta

Stiemsma

Amenyogbe

Brown

Finlay

The intestinal microbiome in early life: health and disease. Front Immunol. 2014; 5:427.

Otto

Basis of virulence in community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Ann Rev Microbiol. 2010; 64:143–162.

10.

Wertheim

Melles

Vos

, et al. The role of nasal carriage in Staphylococcus aureus infections. Lancet Infect Dis. 2005; 5(12):751–762.

11.

Kluytmans

Wertheim

HF.

Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus and prevention of nosocomial infections. Infection. 2005; 33(1):3–8.

12.

DeGruttola

Low

Mizoguchi

Current understanding of dysbiosis in disease in human and animal models. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2016; 22(5):1137–1150.

13.

Esposito

Principi

Impact of nasopharyngeal microbiota on the development of respiratory tract diseases.

Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018; 37(1):1–7.

14.

Huang

YJ.

Nasopharyngeal microbiota: gatekeepers or fortune tellers of susceptibility to respiratory tract infections?

Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017; 196(12):1504–1505.

15.

Desrosiers

Refractory chronic rhinosinusitis: pathophysiology and management of chronic rhinosinusitis persisting after endoscopic sinus surgery.

Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2004; 4(3):200–207.

16.

Bhattacharyya

Kepnes

LJ.

Assessment of trends in antimicrobial resistance in chronic rhinosinusitis.

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2008; 117(6):448–452.

17.

Kingdom

Swain

Jr.

The microbiology and antimicrobial resistance patterns in chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Otolaryngol. 2004; 25(5):323–328.

18.

Nadel

Lanza

Kennedy

DW.

Endoscopically guided cultures in chronic sinusitis. Am J Rhinol. 1998; 12(4):233–241.

19.

Coffey

Sonnenburg

Melroy

Dubin

Senior

BA.

Endoscopically guided aerobic cultures in postsurgical patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol. 2006; 20(1):72–76.

20.

Choi

Hong

Kim

, et al. Decreased diversity of nasal microbiota and their secreted extracellular vesicles in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis based on a metagenomic analysis. Allergy. 2014; 69(4):517–526.

21.

Feazel

Robertson

Ramakrishnan

Frank

DN.

Microbiome complexity and Staphylococcus aureus in chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope. 2012; 122(2):467–472.

22.

Lal

Keim

Delisle

, et al. Mapping and comparing bacterial microbiota in the sinonasal cavity of healthy, allergic rhinitis, and chronic rhinosinusitis subjects. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2017; 7(6):561–569.

23.

Cope

Goldberg

Pletcher

Lynch

SV.

Compositionally and functionally distinct sinus microbiota in chronic rhinosinusitis patients have immunological and clinically divergent consequences. Microbiome. 2017; 5(1):53.

24.

Chung

KF.

Potential role of the lung microbiome in shaping asthma phenotypes.

Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017; 14(Supplement_5):S326–S331.

25.

Zhang

Cox

Liang

, et al. Airway microbiota in severe asthma and relationship to asthma severity and phenotypes. PLoS One. 2016; 11(4):e0152724.

26.

Taylor

Leong

LEX

Choo

, et al. Inflammatory phenotypes in patients with severe asthma are associated with distinct airway microbiology. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018; 141(1):94–103.e115.

27.

Huang

Boushey

HA.

The microbiome in asthma

. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015; 135(1):25–30.

28.

Pérez-Losada

Alamri

Crandall

Freishtat

RJ.

Nasopharyngeal microbiome diversity changes over time in children with asthma.

PLoS One. 2017; 12(1):e0170543.

29.

Perez-Losada

Crandall

Freishtat

RJ.

Two sampling methods yield distinct microbial signatures in the nasopharynges of asthmatic children. Microbiome. 2016; 4(1):25.

30.

Teo

Mok

Pham

, et al. The infant nasopharyngeal microbiome impacts severity of lower respiratory infection and risk of asthma development. Cell Host Microbe. 2015; 17(5):704–715.

31.

Dickson

Erb-Downward

Huffnagle

GB.

The role of the bacterial microbiome in lung disease.

Exp Rev Respir Med. 2013; 7(3):245–257.

32.

Perez-Losada

Castro-Nallar

Bendall

Freishtat

Crandall

KA.

Dual transcriptomic profiling of host and microbiota during health and disease in pediatric asthma. PLoS One. 2015; 10(6):e0131819.

33.

Fazlollahi

Lee

Andrade

, et al. The nasal microbiome in asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018; 142(3):834–843.e832.

34.

Pérez-Losada

Authelet

Hoptay

Kwak

Crandall

Freishtat

RJ.

Pediatric asthma comprises different phenotypic clusters with unique nasal microbiotas. Microbiome. 2018; 6(1):179.

35.

Choi

Poroyko

Watanabe

, et al. Seasonal allergic rhinitis affects sinonasal microbiota. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2014; 28(4):281–286.

36.

Ichinohe

Pang

Kumamoto

, et al. Microbiota regulates immune defense against respiratory tract influenza A virus infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108(13):5354–5359.

37.

Levy

Blacher

Elinav

Microbiome, metabolites and host immunity.

Curr Opin Microbiol. 2017; 35:8–15.

38.

Lee

Gordon

Shedden

, et al. The respiratory microbiome and susceptibility to influenza virus infection. PLoS One. 2019; 14(1):e0207898.

39.

Lynch

SV.

Viruses and microbiome alterations. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2014; 11(Suppl 1):S57–S60.

40.

Lee

Gordon

Foxman

The role of respiratory viruses in the etiology of bacterial pneumonia: An ecological perspective.

Evol Med Public Health. 2016; 2016(1):95–109.

41.

Cauley

Vella

AT.

Why is coinfection with influenza virus and bacteria so difficult to control?

Discov Med. 2015; 19(102):33–40.

42.

Salk

Simon

Lambert

, et al. Taxa of the nasal microbiome are associated with influenza-specific IgA response to live attenuated influenza vaccine. PLoS One. 2016; 11(9):e0162803.

43.

De Lastours

Malosh

Ramadugu

, et al. Co-colonization by Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus in the throat during acute respiratory illnesses. Epidemiol Infect. 2016; 144(16): 3507–3519.

44.

Short

Habets

Hermans

Diavatopoulos

DA.

Interactions between Streptococcus pneumoniae and influenza virus: a mutually beneficial relationship?

Future Microbiol. 2012; 7(5):609–624.

45.

Borges

Giongo

Pereira

, et al. Comparison of the nasopharynx microbiome between influenza and non-influenza cases of severe acute respiratory infections: A pilot study. Health Sci Rep. 2018; 1(6):e47.

46.

Wen

Xie

Zhou

, et al. Distinct nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal microbiota of children with influenza A virus compared with healthy children. BioMed Res Int. 2018; 2018:6362716.

47.

McCullers

McAuley

Browall

Iverson

Boyd

, Henriques Normark B. Influenza enhances susceptibility to natural acquisition of and disease due to Streptococcus pneumoniae in ferrets. J Infect Dis. 2010; 202(8):1287–1295.

48.

Fan

Howard

Griffin

, et al. Nasopharyngeal pneumococcal density and evolution of acute respiratory illnesses in young children, Peru, 2009-2011. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016; 22(11):1996–1999.

49.

Wolter

Tempia

Cohen

, et al. High nasopharyngeal pneumococcal density, increased by viral coinfection, is associated with invasive pneumococcal pneumonia. J Infect Dis. 2014; 210(10):1649–1657.

50.

Rosas-Salazar

Shilts

Tovchigrechko

, et al. Differences in the nasopharyngeal microbiome during acute respiratory tract infection with human rhinovirus and respiratory syncytial virus in infancy. J Infect Dis. 2016; 214(12):1924–1928.

51.

Toivonen

Camargo

Jr Gern

, et al. Association between rhinovirus species and nasopharyngeal microbiota in infants with severe bronchiolitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019; 143(5):1925–1928.e7.

52.

Mansbach

Hasegawa

Piedra

, et al. Haemophilus-dominant nasopharyngeal microbiota is associated with delayed clearance of respiratory syncytial virus in infants hospitalized for bronchiolitis. J Infect Dis. 2018; 219(11):1804–1808.

53.

Krone

van de Groep

Trzcinski

Sanders

Bogaert

Immunosenescence and pneumococcal disease: an imbalance in host-pathogen interactions.

Lancet Respir Med. 2014; 2(2):141–153.

54.

Bogaert

De Groot

Hermans

PW.

Streptococcus pneumoniae colonisation: the key to pneumococcal disease.

Lancet Infect Dis. 2004; 4(3):144–154.

55.

Hilty

Brugger

, et al. Nasopharyngeal microbiota in infants with acute otitis media. J Infect Dis. 2012; 205(7):1048–1055.

56.

Laufer

Metlay

Gent

Fennie

Kong

Pettigrew

MM.

Microbial communities of the upper respiratory tract and otitis media in children.

mBio. 2011; 2(1):e00245–00210.

57.

Lappan

Imbrogno

Sikazwe

, et al. A microbiome case-control study of recurrent acute otitis media identified potentially protective bacterial genera. BMC Microbiol. 2018; 18(1):13.

58.

Chonmaitree

Jennings

Golovko

, et al. Nasopharyngeal microbiota in infants and changes during viral upper respiratory tract infection and acute otitis media. PLoS One. 2017; 12(7):e0180630.

59.

Ishida

Nakamura

Kanzato

, et al. Clinical effects of Lactobacillus acidophilus strain L-92 on perennial allergic rhinitis: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Dairy Sci. 2005; 88(2):527–533.

60.

Lin

Shen

Chen

YJ.

Evaluation of the effect of Lactobacillus paracasei (HF.A00232) in children (6-13 years old) with perennial allergic rhinitis: a 12-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Pediatr Neonatol. 2014; 55(3):181–188.

61.

Jerzynska

Stelmach

Balcerak

, et al. Effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and vitamin D supplementation on the immunologic effectiveness of grass-specific sublingual immunotherapy in children with allergy. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2016; 37(4):324–334.

62.

Mukerji

Pynnonen

Kim

Singer

Tabor

Terrell

JE.

Probiotics as adjunctive treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis: a randomized controlled trial.

Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009; 140(2):202–208.

63.

Martensson

Greiff

Lamei

, et al. Effects of a honeybee lactic acid bacterial microbiome on human nasal symptoms, commensals, and biomarkers. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2016; 6(9):956–963.

64.

Martensson

Abolhalaj

Lindstedt

, et al. Clinical efficacy of a topical lactic acid bacterial microbiome in chronic rhinosinusitis: a randomized controlled trial. Laryngosc Investigat Otolaryngol. 2017; 2(6):410–416.

65.

Johnson

Ellis

Lanier

Schlett

Cui

Merrell

DS.

Correlation between nasal microbiome composition and remote purulent skin and soft tissue infections. Infect Immun. 2015; 83(2):802–811.

66.

Kiryukhina

Melnikov

Suvorov

Morozova

Ilyin

VK.

Use of Corynebacterium pseudodiphtheriticum for elimination of Staphylococcus aureus from the nasal cavity in volunteers exposed to abnormal microclimate and altered gaseous environment. Probiot Antimicrob Proteins. 2013; 5(4):233–238.

67.

Yan

Pamp

Fukuyama

, et al. Nasal microenvironments and interspecific interactions influence nasal microbiota complexity and S. aureus carriage. Cell Host Microbe. 2013; 14(6):631–640.

68.

Uehara

Nakama

Agematsu

, et al. Bacterial interference among nasal inhabitants: eradication of Staphylococcus aureus from nasal cavities by artificial implantation of Corynebacterium sp. J Hosp Infect. 2000; 44(2):127–133.

69.

De Grandi

Drago

Bidossi

Bottagisio

Gelardi

De Vecchi

Putative microbial population shifts attributable to nasal administration of Streptococcus salivarius 24SMBc and Streptococcus oralis 89a. Probiot Antimicrob Proteins. 2019; 11(4):1219–1226.

70.

Luoto

Ruuskanen

Waris

Kalliomaki

Salminen

Isolauri

Prebiotic and probiotic supplementation prevents rhinovirus infections in preterm infants: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014; 133(2):405–413.

71.

Panigrahi

Parida

Nanda

, et al. A randomized synbiotic trial to prevent sepsis among infants in rural India. Nature. 2017; 548(7668):407–412.

72.

Yang

Jing

Yang

Effects of intranasal administration with Bacillus subtilis on immune cells in the nasal mucosa and tonsils of piglets.

Exp Therapeut Med. 2018; 15(6):5189–5198.

The Microbiome of the Nose—Friend or Foe?

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

The Nasal Microbiome

Nasal Microbiome and CRS

Nasal Microbiome and Asthma

Nasal Microbiome and AR

Nasal Microbiome and ARTI

Nasal Microbiome and OM

The Role of Probiotic Intervention in Nasal Microbiome Dysbiosis

Probiotic Intervention in AR

Probiotic Intervention in CRS

Probiotic Intervention in Respiratory Tract Infections

Conclusion

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Authors’ Note

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Ethical Approval

Funding

Statement of Human and Animal Rights

Statement of Informed Consent

ORCID iD

References