Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 30, Number 8—August 2024
CME ACTIVITY - Perspective

Archaea in the Human Microbiome and Potential Effects on Human Infectious Disease

Author affiliations: Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria (S. Duller, C. Moissl-Eichinger); BioTechMed Graz, Graz (C. Moissl-Eichinger)

Cite This Article

Introduction

CME Logo

Medscape CME ACTIVITY

In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by Medscape, LLC and Emerging Infectious Diseases. Medscape, LLC is jointly accredited with commendation by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.

Medscape, LLC designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.00 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s). Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to 1.0 MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program. Participants will earn MOC points equivalent to the amount of CME credits claimed for the activity. It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting ABIM MOC credit.

All other clinicians completing this activity will be issued a certificate of participation. To participate in this journal CME activity: (1) review the learning objectives and author disclosures; (2) study the education content; (3) take the post-test with a 75% minimum passing score and complete the evaluation at https://www.medscape.org/qna/processor/72141?showStandAlone=true&src=prt_jcme_eid_mscpedu; and (4) view/print certificate.

NOTE: It is Medscape's policy to avoid the use of Brand names in accredited activities. However, in an effort to be as clear as possible, trade names are used in this activity to distinguish between the mixtures and different tests. It is not meant to promote any particular product.

Release date: July 15, 2024; Expiration date: July 15, 2025
Learning Objectives

Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:

  • Distinguish the most common species of archaea found in human stools

  • Assess biochemical byproducts of colonization with archaea

  • Evaluate the pathogenic potential of archaea

  • Identify the anatomic site most associated with archaea in pathological processes

CME Editor

Dana C. Dolan, BS, Technical Writer/Editor, Emerging Infectious Diseases. Disclosure: Dana C. Dolan, BS, has no relevant financial relationships.

CME Author

Charles P. Vega, MD, Health Sciences Clinical Professor of Family Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, California. Disclosure: Charles P. Vega, MD, has the following relevant financial relationships: served as an advisor or consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim; GlaxoSmithKline.

Authors

Stefanie Duller, BSc; Christine Moissl-Eichinger, Dr. rer. nat.

Top

Abstract

Archaea represent a separate domain of life, next to bacteria and eukarya. As components of the human microbiome, archaea have been associated with various diseases, including periodontitis, endodontic infections, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and urogenital tract infections. Archaea are generally considered nonpathogenic; the reasons are speculative because of limited knowledge and gene annotation challenges. Nevertheless, archaeal syntrophic principles that shape global microbial networks aid both archaea and potentially pathogenic bacteria. Evaluating archaea interactions remains challenging, requiring clinical studies on inflammatory potential and the effects of archaeal metabolism. Establishing a culture collection is crucial for investigating archaea functions within the human microbiome, which could improve health outcomes in infectious diseases. We summarize potential reasons for archaeal nonpathogenicity, assess the association with infectious diseases in humans, and discuss the necessary experimental steps to enable mechanistic studies involving archaea.

Archaea are a group of single-celled microorganisms with distinct characteristics, and constitute 1 of the 3 domains of life, along with bacteria and eukarya. Although they were thought to live only in extreme environments such as hot springs, archaea have emerged as important components of the human microbiome. Despite their potential importance to human health and disease, archaea are studied less than other members of the microbiome, such as bacteria and fungi. The human microbiome harbors a variety of archaeal species from different phyla (1). Archaeal representatives have been found in various body sites, including the skin, the respiratory tract, the urogenital tract, and the gastrointestinal tract (2,3). Human-associated archaeal communities exhibit spatial patterns similar to those of bacteria; notable examples are the predominant signatures of ammonia-oxidizing Nitrososphaeria on the skin, methane-producing (methanogenic) Archaea in the urogenital and gastrointestinal tracts, and unknown Nanoarchaeota (formerly Woesearchaeota) in the respiratory tract (13).

Given that the gastrointestinal tract contains 99% of all microbial biomass in the human body and serves as the gateway for numerous diseases, research on human-associated archaea, as with bacteria, has primarily focused on fecal samples. In human feces, the most prevalent (>90%) archaeal representatives are Methanobrevibacter smithii and Candidatus Methanobrevibacter intestini, (1,4,5). In particular, M. smithii is highly abundant, especially in persons emitting high levels of methane (6). Because many studies primarily concentrate on fecal samples rather than in vivo samples, and because of general methodological challenges associated with archaea detection (7,8), our understanding of the human archaeome (all archaea residing in the human body) still lacks comprehensive insights into diversity, taxonomic classification, and, importantly, the functional and mechanistic roles of archaea.

Pathogenic Traits

Pathogenicity, the ability to cause disease in multicellular hosts, is widespread in various domains of life. In total, >1,500 human pathogenic bacterial species belonging to 10 phyla and 24 classes are known (9). The pure ratio observed in the bacterial domain indicates that >16 archaeal pathogens should exist (10); however, despite individual case reports and possible correlations with certain polymicrobial diseases (e.g., periodontitis), archaea are mostly considered nonpathogenic. No single representative of archaea known to date possesses capabilities consistent with Koch’s postulates, which has led to several discussions about possible reasons for that observation (1013).

In theory, archaea have the prerequisites to evolve into pathogens because they are genetically and metabolically diverse, ubiquitous in the environment, and able to conflict with close relatives by using compounds directed against archaea (10). It is possible that our limited ability to accurately recognize them in disease conditions (not-yet-been-discovered hypothesis) is the reason no archaeal pathogens have been identified (8,11). Other perspectives have proposed that archaeal pathogens might not exist, potentially because they use different cofactors than those found in eukaryotes (14) or are unable to use the organic resources of the host, which are typically exploited by bacterial pathogens on a large scale (metabolism hypothesis) (15; D.J. Harrison, master’s thesis, 2022, https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/63414). Alternatively, some argue that pathogenesis in archaea does not exist because they do not possess the required virulence factor genes (gene-absence hypothesis) (D.J. Harrison, master’s thesis, 2022). Related hypotheses suggest that archaea cannot acquire virulence factors from bacteria or eukaryotes, possibly because their viruses and cell walls do not permit transfer between domains (virus hypothesis) (10). All those hypotheses warrant discussion. However, considering the huge lack of knowledge regarding gene annotation (virulence factors might be present, but we cannot identify them; or the metabolic capacities of methanogenic archaea have not yet been fully assessed, and we do not understand their behavior in the host with respect to metabolites taken up), a more superficial view on the principles of bacterial pathogenic traits might be useful.

Several steps are necessary for bacterial pathogenicity to develop: invasion, colonization, damage, and transmission (16) (Figure 1). Some of those traits overlap with archaeal characteristics, including exposure to the host (archaea are commensals) and the ability to adhere to and colonize the host (archaea form biofilms and might be able to attach to surfaces through their adhesins). Furthermore, the immunogenic reaction is highly species-specific; immunogenic potential is low for Methanobrevibacter spp. but stronger for Methanosphaera spp. (17). Transmission to other hosts seems probable; Pausan et al. demonstrated that methanogens can survive extended periods under oxygenated conditions (18). Archaea can team up with bacterial pathogens in harmful groups that can enter hosts’ tissues and benefit from invasion or cause damage to the host. In this context, we should mention the keystone pathogen hypothesis (19), in which some microorganisms could orchestrate the microbiome toward a disease status even in low numbers. Indeed, their metabolic capacity at the end of the food chain, consuming fermentation waste products, indicates that methanogens can influence the entire microbiome; their extraordinarily strong pull toward methane production can result in a microbial community optimized for fiber degradation and coping with B12 shortage (6).

Overall, the discussion on the potential of archaea for bearing pathogenic action at this stage remains highly speculative, underscoring the need for further research to elucidate their role in disease. We will address the different examples for infectious state in the human body that involve archaea and warrant deeper studies.

Potential Contribution to Infectious Diseases

The involvement of pathogenic bacteria in various infectious diseases is often the focus of studies, but our understanding of the role of archaea in this context is still limited. Although no pathogenic archaea are known to date, the literature has presented some evidence of links between archaea and various infectious diseases (4,20,21) (Figure 2).

Principles of archaeal syntrophy may play a role in shaping specific microbial networks that influence the overall condition but do not cause disease. Studies suggest that methanogenic archaea engage in a symbiotic relationship with bacteria; they use hydrogen (H2) and other byproducts of bacterial fermentation for methanogenesis, thereby reducing H2 pressure (1). In addition, they produce metabolites, including short-chain fatty acids or vitamins (e.g., formate, B12) (6) that could support the growth of both archaea and potentially pathogenic bacteria (1,4,21).

We will explore the potential role of archaea in human infectious diseases in the oral cavity, gastrointestinal tract, and urogenital tract. Archaea have also been detected in other parts of the body, such as the skin (22) and the respiratory tract (3). However, for both those sites, the information available is too sparse to elaborate on potential infectious traits.

Oral Cavity

A diverse microbial community thrives in the oral cavity; it includes various microorganisms, among which archaea, specifically the genus Methanobrevibacter, should be emphasized. The archaea have been identified in both healthy and sick persons (1,4). Of note, the strain and species resolution of archaeal diversity associated with humans is only partially satisfactory so far. Most of the studies we cite used 16S rRNA gene sequencing (partially with short reads), which does not allow differentiation of the major Methanobrevibacter species. Therefore, any subsequent information provided at the species level should be carefully scrutinized and requires reevaluation.

Periodontitis

Periodontitis is one of the most common bacterial infections in humans and the 6th most common disease worldwide (23). It is a complex dysbiotic disease that develops over a longer timeframe and is the consequence of destructive host immune response to pathogenic, biofilm-forming microorganisms (24). It is characterized by the gradual loss of bone, the development of periodontal pockets, and the progressive decline in tooth function (25,26). Untreated periodontitis is recognized as a risk factor for life-threatening systemic diseases, such as endocarditis, atherosclerosis, and stroke. In addition, it is considered a co-factor for preterm birth (25).

Various microorganisms have been implicated in the onset of periodontitis, including different bacteria (e.g., Tannerella, Treponema, Prevotella, Fusobacterium), and potentially methanogenic archaea (25,26). In particular, M. oralis, M. smithii, and M. massiliense were identified in periodontitis patients within subgingival plaques and deep periodontal pockets (27). It has been shown that M. oralis is more prevalent and abundant in severe periodontitis but was not detected in healthy sites close-by and was not found after healing (27). Methanogenic archaea can comprise up to 18% of all community members in severe periodontitis (1,28,29).

Archaea have a completely different biology from bacteria. Most of the methods used in microbiology and microbiome research have been developed to optimally study and analyze bacteria, which means archaeal signatures are overlooked in most studies, so knowledge about the involvement of archaea is very limited (8). To date, the microbiology of periodontitis has been poorly studied and often remains descriptive. The reasons for the development of the various complex stages and disorders, and the influence of therapy and treatment, remain largely unexplored.

Endodontic Infection

Endodontic infection refers to a microbial infection that develops within the pulp of a tooth, the central part containing nerves, blood vessels, and connective tissues. Typically caused by bacterial invasion, such infections often stem from factors such as tooth decay, dental trauma, incorrect cavity preparation during dental procedures, or use of contaminated restorative materials. Bacteria can infiltrate the root canal primarily through caries, dental anomalies, lateral canals, or damaged cementum. The predominant bacterial phyla identified in infected root canals are Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Spirochaetes, Bacteroidetes, and Actinobacteria (30).

Efenberger et al. detected methanogenic archaea, especially M. smithii and M. oralis, in 85% of infected pulp tissues using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. That finding suggests that archaea may play a role in the development of endodontic infection, potentially in collaboration with bacteria (30). Given that methanogens are involved in deep oral and dental infections, and considering the associated barrier breach, they could spread from that location to other closely located body areas and possibly lead to brain and muscular abscesses, as described in single cases (31).

Tonsillar Phlegmon

Tonsillar phlegmon, a retropharyngeal abscess, mainly affects adolescents and young adults and is caused by an infection originating from the peritonsillar space and the pharyngeal sphincter. The infection can spread to adjacent tissues and, if not treated promptly, this condition, which often involves pathogens such as Streptococcus pyogenes and Fusobacterium necrophorum, can escalate and become a serious threat (32).

Within tonsillar phlegmon, archaea, particularly M. smithii, may foster the growth of pathogenic bacteria through syntrophic interactions. In addition, archaeal methanogenesis activity, leading to methane (CH4) production, could contribute to radiologically visible gas in tonsillar phlegmon cases (32). Djemai et al. identified M. smithii using 16S rRNA gene sequencing with coexisting bacteria commonly found in M. smithii co-infections. Those bacteria belonged to enterobacterial and bacterial orders that include hydrogen producers.

Gastrointestinal Tract

The gastrointestinal tract houses most of the microbes in our body, including a rich diversity of archaea. Predominant members of the gastrointestinal archaeome include M. smithii and Candidatus M. intestini, constituting >90% of the gut archaeome (4,5). Additional noteworthy members encompass M. stadtmanae, M. oralis, Methanosarcinales, Methanomassiliicoccales, and Haloarchaea (3335).

Methanogenic archaea are known for performing methanogenesis, converting bacterial end products (hydrogen and carbon dioxide) into methane and adenosine triphosphate (1,36). Methane travels through the gut and is expelled through flatus or enters the blood to eventually be excreted through the lungs; it is detectable in human breath (37). High methane breath levels (>5 ppm) were shown to correlate with a thousandfold increase in Methanobrevibacter abundance in the gut (6). Therefore, methane production serves as a reliable biomarker for the presence of methanogens in the gut. Varied breath methane levels (and corresponding methanogen abundances) have been associated with diverse health conditions, including small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) (4).

SIBO

SIBO is characterized by an overgrowth of bacteria, surpassing normal levels (>105 colony-forming units), in the small intestine (38). Usually, this overgrowth is caused by gram-negative anaerobic bacteria, manifesting by a hydrogen-positive breath test. In a substantial (30%) number of cases, the overgrowth of archaea was reported (as methane-dominant SIBO or intestinal methanogen overgrowth), recognized by the production of methane, instead of H2. Of note, SIBO is more prevalent in patients with inflammatory bowel syndrome than in healthy controls; a link with methanogen presence and constipation-type IBS has been established (39).

Madigan et al. suggested differing symptoms between SIBO caused by methanogens and that caused by hydrogen-producing bacteria (40). Methane-producing SIBO, especially prevalent in older persons, is linked to a reduced incidence of vitamin B12 (cobalamin) deficiency (38,41). Methanogens, which are able to produce cobalamin themselves (42), could help to make up for such a deficiency, which is in line with a previous study that showed that reduced vitamin B12 uptake was associated with a high methanogen load in the gastrointestinal tract (6,40). Conversely, hydrogenic SIBO is associated with higher occurrences of symptoms like diarrhea, cholecystectomy, diabetes, and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery. Those distinctions may arise from varying sensitivities of archaeal physiology to host factors, including gut anatomy, motility, luminal bile acid concentration, and the capacity to synthesize or salvage cobalamin from neighboring microbiota or diet (40).

Urogenital Tract

The urogenital tract encompasses a system of organs integral to urinary and reproductive functions. This system comprises the kidneys, ureters, bladder, and urethra to form, transport, and eliminate urine. Furthermore, it incorporates reproductive organs such as testes in male persons and the ovaries, uterus, and vagina in females (43). The urogenital microbiota contribute to the maintenance of homeostasis in the urinary tract by influencing the immune response; alterations of the microbial communities are documented to be related to various diseases (44). The close proximity of the urinary tract, vagina, and gastrointestinal tract enables the transmission of microorganisms, including archaea, from feces to those regions, which may contribute to infectious diseases such as urinary tract infections and vaginosis.

Urinary Tract Infections

Traditionally, urine was believed to be sterile; however, current understanding acknowledges the presence of a microbiome in the urogenital tract. This microbiome plays a crucial role in the pathophysiology of urinary tract infections (UTIs) and the maintenance of urinary tract health (44,45). UTIs commonly arise when microbes from the rectal area enter the urethra, migrating upward into the bladder or other areas of the urinary tract (46).

Various factors, including sexual activity, urinary tract abnormalities, a weakened immune system, catheter use, and hormonal changes, can elevate the risk of a UTI developing (47). Bacteria are typically associated with UTIs; however, M. smithii has also been identified as a component of the urinary microbial community. Urine samples containing M. smithii have exhibited the presence of hydrogen-producing enterobacteria, including Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. The consistent co-occurrence suggests a potential role of M. smithii in supporting the dysbiosis by promoting the growth of enterobacteria, which are recognized agents of UTIs (45,46).

Vaginosis

Vaginosis refers to an imbalance in the vaginal microbiota, leading to discomfort and noticeable symptoms (48). The vagina typically hosts microbiota with lower diversity, predominantly consisting of lactobacilli. Vaginosis can arise as a result of changes in vaginal pH or transfer of fecal microbes from the gastrointestinal tract to the vagina (48). Of note, M. smithii has been identified in patients with vaginosis, and its presence has been proposed as a potential biomarker for this condition (48). This association is plausible, considering that M. smithii is the most prevalent archaea found in the gastrointestinal tract (4). Some studies have faced challenges in detecting archaea in samples from both healthy and infected women (49). It has been suggested that methanogens contribute to vaginal health (C.J. Neumann et al., unpub. data, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.08.31.555744v1).

Methanogenesis by archaea is believed to play a role in maintaining the pH balance of the vaginal microbiome. Moreover, it helps prevent the accumulation of acidic conditions that could disrupt the vaginal microbiome (50). Although M. smithii might be among the usual vaginal microbiota, its specific connection to vaginosis requires further investigations for a comprehensive understanding.

Conclusions

The literature demonstrates that archaea constitute active components within the human microbiome and are prevalent across a range of different body sites (2). Associations with various infectious diseases, such as periodontitis and endodontic infections within the oral cavity, SIBO in the gastrointestinal tract, and infections of the urogenital tract, have been reported (1,4). Although many of those reports are preliminary and do not fully resolve the archaeal components taxonomically, the genus Methanobrevibacter emerges as the most commonly observed archaea possibly linked to these infectious diseases (Figure 2; Appendix).

Understanding the complexities of detoxifying microbial metabolic products, particularly in the context of methanogenesis, carries substantial implications for both pathogen growth and disease onset. The interaction between archaea and bacteria in syntrophic relationships offers valuable insights into the dynamics within microbial communities. It is essential to conduct a thorough investigation to reveal the complex mechanisms behind these connections, which could play a role in shifting the microbiome toward a diseased state. Those experiments not only would shed light on potential disease mechanisms but also could open up paths for novel therapeutic approaches to address microbial dysbiosis linked to conditions such as periodontitis and other diseases (50).

The extent to which interactions with archaea are beneficial, neutral, or pathogenic is not well understood. Furthermore, advancing research in human health demands an increased focus on clinical studies that consider the inflammatory potential of archaea. In addition, such studies should explore the influence of archaeal metabolisms and their products, including the effects of methane on the human body (1). Although archaea are generally considered nonpathogenic, they could have the potential prerequisites for pathogenesis. Various hypotheses, such as the not-yet-been-discovered, metabolism, gene-absence, and virus hypotheses, are proposed to explain the apparent absence of archaeal pathogens (8,10,11,16). However, because of limited knowledge, challenges in gene annotation, and the complex nature of archaeal behavior in host environments, those hypotheses have not been proven. Although some pathogenic traits overlap between bacteria and archaea, the discussion of potential pathogenic action of archaea is ongoing and emphasizes the need for further research to understand their role in disease.

To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the role of archaea in health and disease requires additional initiatives aimed at effectively characterizing host-associated and disease-associated archaea. Despite the use of molecular biologic techniques in studying the archaeome, detecting archaea presents challenges primarily because standard protocols in research and diagnostics that are optimized for bacteria prove suboptimal for archaea because of their diverse cell structure, physiology, and metabolic activity. Those distinctive features, coupled with inappropriate protocols for sampling, DNA extraction, and PCR primer selection, create obstacles in visualizing, culturing, or analyzing archaea. Moreover, the absence of extensive reference databases hinders a thorough evaluation of the acquired data. Compounding this challenge is the presence of a robust bacterial or host background, further complicating the detection and analysis of archaea (8).

The limited availability of archaeal cultures hinders in-depth, mechanistic, physiologic and comprehensive analyses, including multiomics and interaction studies that could deepen our comprehension of archaea’s role in health and disease (Figure 3). According to the Global Catalog of Microorganisms (https://gcm.wdcm.org/species?taxonid=2173), only a handful of host-associated archaeal isolates are publicly accessible in culture. Those isolates include 3 strains of M. oralis from the human oral cavity and subgingival plaque, along with 4 strains of M. smithii isolated from human feces and the large intestine. The limited availability of cultures presents a substantial hindrance to conducting thorough research. Publications do exist describing the successful isolation of various archaea from patients with diverse health conditions (5), but there is currently no comprehensive culture collection for archaea. Establishing such a collection would be pivotal for advancing research on the archaeome; we have established a cultivation pipeline for the enrichment and cultivation of methanogenic archaea in a highly efficient way (J. Duller, et al., unpub. data, https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.10.588852).

Expanding our collection of human-derived isolates is crucial for gaining deeper insights into the functions and roles of archaea, enabling functional analyses in disease models, and determining the effects of their structural elements and metabolites. Microorganisms within a microbiome network engage in various interactions that affect each other and the health of the host. Understanding of such microbial interactions beyond the bacterial sphere is essential for a more comprehensive grasp of disease mechanisms and the search for new diagnostic, preventive, and therapeutic strategies.

Top

Acknowledgment

This research was funded in whole or in part by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) (grants P 32697, P 30796, SFB F-83, COE 7, given to C.M.E.). S.D. was supported by the local PhD program MolMed.

Top

References

  1. Borrel  G, Brugère  JF, Gribaldo  S, Schmitz  RA, Moissl-Eichinger  C. The host-associated archaeome. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18:62236. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bang  C, Schmitz  RA. Archaea associated with human surfaces: not to be underestimated. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2015;39:63148. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Koskinen  K, Pausan  MR, Perras  AK, Beck  M, Bang  C, Mora  M, et al. First insights into the diverse human archaeome: specific detection of Archaea in the gastrointestinal tract, lung, and nose and on skin. MBio. 2017;8:e0082417. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Mohammadzadeh  R, Mahnert  A, Duller  S, Moissl-Eichinger  C. Archaeal key-residents within the human microbiome: characteristics, interactions and involvement in health and disease. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2022;67:102146. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chibani  CM, Mahnert  A, Borrel  G, Almeida  A, Werner  A, Brugère  JF, et al. A catalogue of 1,167 genomes from the human gut archaeome. Nat Microbiol. 2022;7:4861. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Kumpitsch  C, Fischmeister  FPS, Mahnert  A, Lackner  S, Wilding  M, Sturm  C, et al. Reduced B12 uptake and increased gastrointestinal formate are associated with archaeome-mediated breath methane emission in humans. Microbiome. 2021;9:193. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Sun  Y, Liu  Y, Pan  J, Wang  F, Li  M. Perspectives on cultivation strategies of archaea. Microb Ecol. 2020;79:77084. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Mahnert  A, Blohs  M, Pausan  MR, Moissl-Eichinger  C. The human archaeome: methodological pitfalls and knowledge gaps. Emerg Top Life Sci. 2018;2:46982. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartlett  A, Padfield  D, Lear  L, Bendall  R, Vos  M. A comprehensive list of bacterial pathogens infecting humans. Microbiology (Reading). 2022;168.
  10. Gill  EE, Brinkman  FSL. The proportional lack of archaeal pathogens: Do viruses/phages hold the key? BioEssays. 2011;33:24854. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cavicchioli  R, Curmi  PMG, Saunders  N, Thomas  T. Pathogenic archaea: do they exist? BioEssays. 2003;25:111928. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Conway de Macario  E, Macario  AJL. Methanogenic archaea in health and disease: a novel paradigm of microbial pathogenesis. Int J Med Microbiol. 2009;299:99108. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lurie-Weinberger  MN, Gophna  U. Archaea in and on the human body: health implications and future directions. PLoS Pathog. 2015;11:e1004833. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Martin  W, Cavicchioli  R, Curmi  P. Pathogenic archaebacteria: do they not exist because archaebacteria use different vitamins? BioEssays. 2004;26:5923, author reply 593. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Valentine  DL. Adaptations to energy stress dictate the ecology and evolution of the Archaea. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2007;5:31623. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ezepchuk  YV. Biological concept of bacterial pathogenicity (theoretical review). Adv Microbiol. 2017;07:53544. DOIGoogle Scholar
  17. Vierbuchen  T, Bang  C, Rosigkeit  H, Schmitz  RA, Heine  H. The human-associated archaeon Methanosphaera stadtmanae is recognized through its RNA and induces Tlr8-dependent nlrP3 inflammasome activation. Front Immunol. 2017;8:1535. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Pausan  MR, Blohs  M, Mahnert  A, Moissl-Eichinger  C. The sanitary indoor environment-a potential source for intact human-associated anaerobes. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2022;8:44. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hajishengallis  G, Darveau  RP, Curtis  MA. The keystone-pathogen hypothesis. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10:71725. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Volmer  JG, McRae  H, Morrison  M. The evolving role of methanogenic archaea in mammalian microbiomes. Front Microbiol. 2023;14:1268451. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuehnast  T, Kumpitsch  C, Mohammadzadeh  R, Weichhart  T, Moissl-Eichinger  C, Heine  H. Exploring the human archaeome: its relevance for health and disease, and its complex interplay with the human immune system. FEBS J. 2024;febs.17123.
  22. Probst  AJ, Auerbach  AK, Moissl-Eichinger  C. Archaea on human skin. PLoS One. 2013;8:e65388. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Frencken  JE, Sharma  P, Stenhouse  L, Green  D, Laverty  D, Dietrich  T. Global epidemiology of dental caries and severe periodontitis - a comprehensive review. J Clin Periodontol. 2017;44(Suppl 18):S94105. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Chen  C, Hemme  C, Beleno  J, Shi  ZJ, Ning  D, Qin  Y, et al. Oral microbiota of periodontal health and disease and their changes after nonsurgical periodontal therapy. ISME J. 2018;12:121024. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Vianna  ME, Holtgraewe  S, Seyfarth  I, Conrads  G, Horz  HP. Quantitative analysis of three hydrogenotrophic microbial groups, methanogenic archaea, sulfate-reducing bacteria, and acetogenic bacteria, within plaque biofilms associated with human periodontal disease. J Bacteriol. 2008;190:377985. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Huynh  HTT, Pignoly  M, Drancourt  M, Aboudharam  G. A new methanogen “Methanobrevibacter massiliense” isolated in a case of severe periodontitis. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10:657. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Pilliol  V, Beye  M, Terlier  L, Balmelle  J, Kacel  I, Lan  R, et al. Methanobrevibacter massiliense and Pyramidobacter piscolens co-culture illustrates transkingdom symbiosis. Microorganisms. 2024;12:215. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Bringuier  A, Khelaifia  S, Richet  H, Aboudharam  G, Drancourt  M. Real-time PCR quantification of Methanobrevibacter oralis in periodontitis. J Clin Microbiol. 2013;51:9934. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lepp  PWPW, Brinig  MM, Ouverney  CC, Palm  K, Armitage  GC, Relman  DA. Methanogenic Archaea and human periodontal disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:617681. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Efenberger  M, Agier  J, Pawłowska  E, Brzezińska-Błaszczyk  E. Archaea prevalence in inflamed pulp tissues. Cent Eur J Immunol. 2015;40:194200. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Drancourt  M, Nkamga  VD, Lakhe  NA, Régis  JM, Dufour  H, Fournier  PE, et al. Evidence of archaeal methanogens in brain abscess. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65:15. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Djemai  K, Gouriet  F, Michel  J, Radulesco  T, Drancourt  M, Grine  G. Methanobrevibacter smithii tonsillar phlegmon: a case report. New Microbes New Infect. 2021;42:100891. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kim  JY, Whon  TW, Lim  MY, Kim  YB, Kim  N, Kwon  MS, et al. The human gut archaeome: identification of diverse haloarchaea in Korean subjects. Microbiome. 2020;8:114. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Scanlan  PD, Shanahan  F, Marchesi  JR. Human methanogen diversity and incidence in healthy and diseased colonic groups using mcrA gene analysis. BMC Microbiol. 2008;8:79. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Borrel  G, McCann  A, Deane  J, Neto  MC, Lynch  DB, Brugère  JF, et al. Genomics and metagenomics of trimethylamine-utilizing Archaea in the human gut microbiome. ISME J. 2017;11:205974. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Polag  D, Keppler  F. Global methane emissions from the human body: past, present and future. Atmos Environ. 2019;214:116823. DOIGoogle Scholar
  37. Hudson  MJ, Tomkins  AM, Wiggins  HS, Drasar  BS. Breath methane excretion and intestinal methanogenesis in children and adults in rural Nigeria. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1993;28:9938. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Hoegenauer  C, Hammer  HF, Mahnert  A, Moissl-Eichinger  C. Methanogenic archaea in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;19:80513. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. O’Dwyer  D. Homemade elemental diet to treat intestinal methanogen overgrowth: a case report. Integr Med (Encinitas). 2021;20:3241.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Madigan  KE, Bundy  R, Weinberg  RB. Distinctive clinical correlates of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth with methanogens. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20:15981605.e2. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Pimentel  M, Saad  RJ, Long  MD, Rao  SSC. ACG Clinical guideline: small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115:16578. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Jiang  Q, Lin  L, Xie  F, Jin  W, Zhu  W, Wang  M, et al. Metagenomic insights into the microbe-mediated B and K2 vitamin biosynthesis in the gastrointestinal microbiome of ruminants. Microbiome. 2022;10:109. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Neugent  ML, Hulyalkar  NV, Nguyen  VH, Zimmern  PE, De Nisco  NJ. Advances in understanding the human urinary microbiome and its potential role in urinary tract infection. MBio. 2020;11:e0021820. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kim  YB, Whon  TW, Kim  JY, Kim  J, Kim  Y, Lee  SH, et al. In-depth metataxonomic investigation reveals low richness, high intervariability, and diverse phylotype candidates of archaea in the human urogenital tract. Sci Rep. 2023;13:11746. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Grine  G, Lotte  R, Chirio  D, Chevalier  A, Raoult  D, Drancourt  M, et al. Co-culture of Methanobrevibacter smithii with enterobacteria during urinary infection. EBioMedicine. 2019;43:3337. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Flores-Mireles  AL, Walker  JN, Caparon  M, Hultgren  SJ. Urinary tract infections: epidemiology, mechanisms of infection and treatment options. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2015;13:26984. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Vasudevan  R. Urinary tract infection: an overview of the infection and the associated risk factors. J Microbiol Exp. 2014;1. DOIGoogle Scholar
  48. Grine  G, Drouet  H, Fenollar  F, Bretelle  F, Raoult  D, Drancourt  M. Detection of Methanobrevibacter smithii in vaginal samples collected from women diagnosed with bacterial vaginosis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019;38:16439. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Belay  N, Mukhopadhyay  B, Conway de Macario  E, Galask  R, Daniels  L. Methanogenic bacteria in human vaginal samples. J Clin Microbiol. 1990;28:16668. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Guerra  A. Human associated Archaea: a neglected microbiome worth investigating. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2024;40:60. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar

Top

Figures

Top

Follow Up

Earning CME Credit

To obtain credit, you should first read the journal article. After reading the article, you should be able to answer the following, related, multiple-choice questions. To complete the questions (with a minimum 75% passing score) and earn continuing medical education (CME) credit, please go to https://www.medscape.org/journal/eid. Credit cannot be obtained for tests completed on paper, although you may use the worksheet below to keep a record of your answers.

You must be a registered user on http://www.medscape.org. If you are not registered on http://www.medscape.org, please click on the “Register” link on the right hand side of the website.

Only one answer is correct for each question. Once you successfully answer all post-test questions, you will be able to view and/or print your certificate. For questions regarding this activity, contact the accredited provider, CME@medscape.net. For technical assistance, contact CME@medscape.net. American Medical Association’s Physician’s Recognition Award (AMA PRA) credits are accepted in the US as evidence of participation in CME activities. For further information on this award, please go to https://www.ama-assn.org. The AMA has determined that physicians not licensed in the US who participate in this CME activity are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. Through agreements that the AMA has made with agencies in some countries, AMA PRA credit may be acceptable as evidence of participation in CME activities. If you are not licensed in the US, please complete the questions online, print the AMA PRA CME credit certificate, and present it to your national medical association for review.

Article Title: 
Archaea in the Human Microbiome and Potential Effects on Human Infectious Disease
CME Questions
  • Which of the following member of the archaea family is most commonly found in human feces?

    • Methanobrevibacteroralis

    • Mycobacterium massisiliense

    • Melica smithii

    • Thermoplasma-like spp.

  • What byproduct is most commonly associated with archaea?

    • Hydrogen

    • Nitrogen

    • Methane

    • Bicarbonate

  • Which of the following statements regarding the potential role of archaea as human pathogens most accurate?

    • They are directly implicated in causing infections of multiple organ systems

    • They are most clearly pathogenic in the presence of bacteria such as Escherichia coli

    • They are mostly considered nonpathogenic

    • They are not pathogenic and instead have been demonstrated to be vital to digestion and circulatory health

  • Archaea are most associated with pathologic processes at which of the following anatomic sites?

    • Oral cavity

    • Lungs

    • Skin

    • Central nervous system

Top

Cite This Article

DOI: 10.3201/eid3008.240181

Original Publication Date: July 15, 2024

Related Links

Table of Contents – Volume 30, Number 8—August 2024

EID Search Options
presentation_01 Advanced Article Search – Search articles by author and/or keyword.
presentation_01 Articles by Country Search – Search articles by the topic country.
presentation_01 Article Type Search – Search articles by article type and issue.

Top

Comments

Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:

Christine Moissl-Eichinger, Neue Stiftingtalstraße 6, 8010 Graz, Austria; email: christine.moissl-eichinger@medunigraz.at

Send To

10000 character(s) remaining.

Top

Page created: June 21, 2024
Page updated: July 15, 2024
Page reviewed: July 15, 2024
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external