Skip to main content
  • ASM Journals
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Issues
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Special Series: Sponsored Minireviews and Video Abstracts
    • Archive
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Novel Systems Biology Techniques
    • Early-Career Systems Microbiology Perspectives
  • For Authors
    • Getting Started
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics
  • About the Journal
    • About mSystems
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • ASM Journals
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
mSystems
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Issues
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Special Series: Sponsored Minireviews and Video Abstracts
    • Archive
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Novel Systems Biology Techniques
    • Early-Career Systems Microbiology Perspectives
  • For Authors
    • Getting Started
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics
  • About the Journal
    • About mSystems
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
Commentary | Applied and Environmental Science

The Built Environment Is a Microbial Wasteland

Sean M. Gibbons
Sean M. Gibbons
Department of Biological Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/mSystems.00033-16
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Humanity’s transition from the outdoor environment to the built environment (BE) has reduced our exposure to microbial diversity. The relative importance of factors that contribute to the composition of human-dominated BE microbial communities remains largely unknown. In their article in this issue, Chase and colleagues (J. Chase, J. Fouquier, M. Zare, D. L. Sonderegger, R. Knight, S. T. Kelley, J. Siegel, and J. G. Caporaso, mSystems 1(2):e00022-16, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00022-16 ) present an office building study in which they controlled for environmental factors, geography, surface material, sampling location, and human interaction type. They found that surface location and geography were the strongest factors contributing to microbial community structure, while surface material had little effect. Even in the absence of direct human interaction, BE surfaces were composed of 25 to 30% human skin-associated taxa. The authors demonstrate how technical variation across sequencing runs is a major issue, especially in BE work, where the biomass is often low and the potential for PCR contaminants is high. Overall, the authors conclude that BE surfaces are desert-like environments where microbes passively accumulate.

The views expressed in this Commentary do not necessarily reflect the views of this journal or of ASM.

COMMENTARY

Multicellular organisms have evolved in close association with diverse microbial consortia. Certain members of these consortia are passed vertically from parent to offspring (1), while others are acquired from the environment (2). Modern humans have largely removed themselves from the outdoor environments in which we evolved (Fig. 1). We now spend most of our lives indoors—in our “built environment” (BE). This shift in lifestyle may have disrupted the successional processes whereby we acquire a fully functional adult microbiome (3–5). Microbial dysbioses have been linked to a number of developmental disorders and disease susceptibility (6–9). Indeed, the hygiene hypothesis posits that Western lifestyles are responsible for a wide array of autoimmune disorders and allergies, which have increased in frequency in industrialized nations (10).

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

Microbial diversity in outdoor environments and BEs. On the left is the silhouette of a cowboy brushing past a pine tree while riding a horse. On the right is the silhouette of a person sitting in an office chair and working on a laptop. Blue microbes are human associated, while other colors represent nonhuman microbial diversity.

The study of the microbiology of the BE has expanded rapidly over the past several years, in part because of the rise of culture-independent methods for characterizing microbial diversity (4). Early work has found that humans rapidly transfer their microbes to BE surfaces (11–13), and these signatures can be used to forensically identify individuals (14–16). This transfer seems to be mainly unidirectional—i.e., surfaces look more human (microbiologically speaking) after an interaction rather than the other way around. Most of these microbes are likely dead, dying, or dormant—unable to grow on inert BE surfaces. Despite the inhospitable conditions on BE surfaces, many human-associated organisms can survive there for extended periods of time (17). Thus, BE surfaces are potential reservoirs of pathogenic and/or commensal organisms, although there is a paucity of evidence to show direct transfer of microbes from the BE to humans.

Much remains unknown about the relative importance of the different factors that shape the BE microbiome. Some work has been done to determine how the BE is influenced by direct or indirect dispersal from humans (11, 18), location within a room (12, 17, 19), surface material (13), environmental factors (20), and geography (3). However, these factors are often conflated with one another. Chase et al. (21) set out to control for these confounding variables in an office building experiment. They manufactured standardized sampling plates with sensors to detect temperature, humidity, and room occupancy. Each plate came with three sterilized BE surface types, i.e., painted drywall, ceiling tile, and carpet. Plates were installed on the floor, the wall, and the ceiling, at each of three office locations in three different cities (Flagstaff, AZ; San Diego, CA; and Toronto, ON). Office occupants were instructed not to touch the sampling plates, to prevent the direct transfer of human-associated microbes. Chase and colleagues found that the location of a plate (e.g., floor versus ceiling) and geography were the most important variables in shaping the BE microbial community composition. Surprisingly, the type of surface—drywall, tile, or carpet—had little impact on microbial community structure. Unlike prior work (11, 22), building-specific microbial signatures were weak when other factors were controlled for. The authors explain that this is likely due to the absence of direct contact between office workers and the sampling plates. Despite this lack of direct interaction, 25 to 30% of the BE surface microbial communities appeared to be from human skin. Overall, the authors suggest that BE surfaces are microbial deserts, wastelands like the Atacama Desert, where water and nutrients are scarce. They suggest that microorganisms from the human body or from environmental sources are dispersed onto these BE surfaces, where they either die or lie dormant, “waiting for liquid water to become active again.”

In addition to dissecting apart the BE determinants of microbial community composition, Chase and colleagues addressed two technical issues associated with BE research. First, they looked at how repeated sampling (dry swabbing) of the same surface perturbs the resident microbial community. They showed that multiple samplings of the same surface had a minimal effect on microbial community structure, opening the door to study designs that incorporate longitudinal sampling of the same surface. Second, they addressed the issue of batch effects (i.e., technical variation) between multiple sequencing runs by sequencing a subset of samples across all three of the runs completed in their study. These batch effects are especially pernicious for low-biomass samples, where PCR contaminants are much more common. Indeed, the authors detected a significant batch effect across runs and identified which taxa were differentially abundant. While the authors discuss strategies for mitigating this technical variance (e.g., filtering out taxa that differed significantly across runs), future work should focus on more refined methods for addressing these batch effects in high-throughput sequencing data. For example, batch effects are a known issue in microarray studies and strategies like factor analysis have been used successfully to remove this artificial variance from the data (23). Another, complementary, option would be to have a “gold standard” microbial community sample with a defined composition that researchers could include as a control in each sequencing run.

In summary, the study conducted by Chase and colleagues provides us with a better understanding of the basic rules governing community assembly on BE surfaces and the technical challenges associated with analyzing amplicon sequencing data. Unlike the lush habitats found in soils, lakes, oceans, and host organisms, BE surfaces appear to be barren wastelands. Microbial communities on BE surfaces are often the decaying remnants of the human microbiome. In the absence of direct human contact, microbes on BE surfaces are sourced from an ambient pool of airborne taxa. The persistence of microorganisms in the BE is the result of accumulation and dormancy and not active growth. If we want to reshape the BE microbiome, we need to control the rate of dispersal from different sources (e.g., environmental versus human). Epidemiological data suggest that the reduced microbial diversity found in BEs may have the largest impact on the developing microbiomes of infants and young children. Ultimately, the BE field will need to determine whether reduced exposure to microbial diversity in the BE is a major driver behind the hygiene hypothesis.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I gratefully acknowledge Cache Gibbons and Samantha Veysey for the original artwork in Fig. 1 and Eric Alm for helpful discussion and comments on the text.

FOOTNOTES

  • For the article discussed, see 10.1128/mSystems.00022-16.

  • Copyright © 2016 Gibbons.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license .

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Moran NA,
    2. Baumann P
    . 2000. Bacterial endosymbionts in animals. Curr Opin Microbiol3:270–275. doi:10.1016/S1369-5274(00)00088-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Ley RE,
    2. Hamady M,
    3. Lozupone C,
    4. Turnbaugh PJ,
    5. Ramey RR,
    6. Bircher JS,
    7. Schlegel ML,
    8. Tucker TA,
    9. Schrenzel MD,
    10. Knight R,
    11. Gordon JI
    . 2008. Evolution of mammals and their gut microbes. Science320:1647–1651. doi:10.1126/science.1155725.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Ruiz-Calderon JF,
    2. Cavallin H,
    3. Song SJ,
    4. Novoselac A,
    5. Pericchi LR,
    6. Hernandez JN,
    7. Rios R,
    8. Branch OH,
    9. Pereira H,
    10. Paulino LC,
    11. Blaser MJ,
    12. Knight R,
    13. Dominguez-Bello MG
    . 2016. Walls talk: microbial biogeography of homes spanning urbanization. Sci Adv2:e1501061. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1501061.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Kelley ST,
    2. Gilbert JA
    . 2013. Studying the microbiology of the indoor environment. Genome Biol14:202. doi:10.1186/gb-2013-14-2-202.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Koenig JE,
    2. Spor A,
    3. Scalfone N,
    4. Fricker AD,
    5. Stombaugh J,
    6. Knight R,
    7. Angenent LT,
    8. Ley RE
    . 2011. Succession of microbial consortia in the developing infant gut microbiome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A108(Suppl 1):4578–4585. doi:10.1073/pnas.1000081107.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Cho I,
    2. Blaser MJ
    . 2012. The human microbiome: at the interface of health and disease. Nat Rev Genet13:260–270. doi:10.1038/nrg3182.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Ley RE,
    2. Turnbaugh PJ,
    3. Klein S,
    4. Gordon JI
    . 2006. Microbial ecology: human gut microbes associated with obesity. Nature444:1022–1023. doi:10.1038/4441022a.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    1. Henao-Mejia J,
    2. Elinav E,
    3. Jin C,
    4. Hao L,
    5. Mehal WZ,
    6. Strowig T,
    7. Thaiss CA,
    8. Kau AL,
    9. Eisenbarth SC,
    10. Jurczak MJ,
    11. Camporez JP,
    12. Shulman GI,
    13. Gordon JI,
    14. Hoffman HM,
    15. Flavell RA
    . 2012. Inflammasome-mediated dysbiosis regulates progression of NAFLD and obesity. Nature482:179–185. doi:10.1038/nature10809.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Schubert AM,
    2. Sinani H,
    3. Schloss PD
    . 2015. Antibiotic-induced alterations of the murine gut microbiota and subsequent effects on colonization resistance against Clostridium difficile. mBio6:e00974-00915. doi:10.1128/mBio.00974-15.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    1. Okada H,
    2. Kuhn C,
    3. Feillet H,
    4. Bach JF
    . 2010. The “hygiene hypothesis” for autoimmune and allergic diseases: an update. Clin Exp Immunol160:1–9. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2249.2010.04139.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    1. Lax S,
    2. Smith DP,
    3. Hampton-Marcell J,
    4. Owens SM,
    5. Handley KM,
    6. Scott NM,
    7. Gibbons SM,
    8. Larsen P,
    9. Shogan BD,
    10. Weiss S,
    11. Metcalf JL,
    12. Ursell LK,
    13. Vázquez-Baeza Y,
    14. Van Treuren W,
    15. Hasan NA,
    16. Gibson MK,
    17. Colwell R,
    18. Dantas G,
    19. Knight R,
    20. Gilbert JA
    . 2014. Longitudinal analysis of microbial interaction between humans and the indoor environment. Science345:1048–1052. doi:10.1126/science.1254529.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Meadow JF,
    2. Altrichter AE,
    3. Kembel SW,
    4. Moriyama M,
    5. O’Connor TK,
    6. Womack AM,
    7. Brown GZ,
    8. Green JL,
    9. Bohannan BJ
    . 2014. Bacterial communities on classroom surfaces vary with human contact. Microbiome2:7. doi:10.1186/2049-2618-2-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Wood M,
    2. Gibbons SM,
    3. Lax S,
    4. Eshoo-Anton TW,
    5. Owens SM,
    6. Kennedy S,
    7. Gilbert JA,
    8. Hampton-Marcell JT
    . 2015. Athletic equipment microbiota are shaped by interactions with human skin. Microbiome3:25. doi:10.1186/s40168-015-0088-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Lax S,
    2. Hampton-Marcell JT,
    3. Gibbons SM,
    4. Colares GB,
    5. Smith D,
    6. Eisen JA,
    7. Gilbert JA
    . 2015. Forensic analysis of the microbiome of phones and shoes. Microbiome3:21. doi:10.1186/s40168-015-0082-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Franzosa EA,
    2. Huang K,
    3. Meadow JF,
    4. Gevers D,
    5. Lemon KP,
    6. Bohannan BJ,
    7. Huttenhower C
    . 2015. Identifying personal microbiomes using metagenomic codes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A112:E2930–E2938. doi:10.1073/pnas.1423854112.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Meadow JF,
    2. Altrichter AE,
    3. Green JL
    . 2014. Mobile phones carry the personal microbiome of their owners. PeerJ2:e447. doi:10.7717/peerj.447.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Gibbons SM,
    2. Schwartz T,
    3. Fouquier J,
    4. Mitchell M,
    5. Sangwan N,
    6. Gilbert JA,
    7. Kelley ST
    . 2015. Ecological succession and viability of human-associated microbiota on restroom surfaces. Appl Environ Microbiol81:765–773. doi:10.1128/AEM.03117-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Meadow JF,
    2. Altrichter AE,
    3. Bateman AC,
    4. Stenson J,
    5. Brown GZ,
    6. Green JL,
    7. Bohannan BJ
    . 2015. Humans differ in their personal microbial cloud. PeerJ3:e1258. doi:10.7717/peerj.1258.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Flores GE,
    2. Bates ST,
    3. Knights D,
    4. Lauber CL,
    5. Stombaugh J,
    6. Knight R,
    7. Fierer N
    . 2011. Microbial biogeography of public restroom surfaces. PLoS One6:e28132. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028132.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Pakpour S,
    2. Li D,
    3. Klironomos J
    . 2015. Relationships of fungal spore concentrations in the air and meteorological factors. Fungal Ecol13:130–134. doi:10.1016/j.funeco.2014.09.008.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    1. Chase J,
    2. Fouquier J,
    3. Mahnaz Z,
    4. Sonderegger DL,
    5. Knight R,
    6. Kelley ST,
    7. Siegel J,
    8. Caporaso JG
    . 2016. Geography and location are the primary drivers of office microbiome composition. mSystems1:e00022-16. doi:10.1128/mSystems.00022-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Hewitt KM,
    2. Gerba CP,
    3. Maxwell SL,
    4. Kelley ST
    . 2012. Office space bacterial abundance and diversity in three metropolitan areas. PLoS One7:e37849. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037849.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Lauss M,
    2. Visne I,
    3. Kriegner A,
    4. Ringnér M,
    5. Jönsson G,
    6. Höglund M
    . 2013. Monitoring of technical variation in quantitative high-throughput datasets. Cancer Inform12:193–201. doi:10.4137/CIN.S12862.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
The Built Environment Is a Microbial Wasteland
Sean M. Gibbons
mSystems Apr 2016, 1 (2) e00033-16; DOI: 10.1128/mSystems.00033-16

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this mSystems article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Built Environment Is a Microbial Wasteland
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from mSystems
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in mSystems.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
The Built Environment Is a Microbial Wasteland
Sean M. Gibbons
mSystems Apr 2016, 1 (2) e00033-16; DOI: 10.1128/mSystems.00033-16
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • COMMENTARY
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

built environment
hygiene hypothesis
indoor
microbiome
office
outdoor

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About mSystems
  • Author Videos
  • Board of Editors
  • Policies
  • Overleaf Pilot
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Warranty
  • Types of Articles
  • Getting Started
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #mSystemsJ

@ASMicrobiology

       

 

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Online ISSN: 2379-5077