Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 441

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Community differentiation of the cutaneous microbiota in psoriasis

Open access
Alekseyenko, Alexander V, Perez-Perez, Guillermo I, De Souza, Aieska, Strober, Bruce, Gao, Zhan, Bihan, Monika, Li, Kelvin, Methé, Barbara A, Blaser, Martin J·2013·Microbiome

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a common chronic inflammatory disease of the skin. We sought to characterize and compare the cutaneous microbiota of psoriatic lesions (lesion group), unaffected contralateral skin from psoriatic patients (unaffected group), and similar skin loci in matched healthy controls (control group) in order to discern patterns that govern skin colonization and their relationship to clinical diagnosis. RESULTS: Using high-throughput 16S rRNA gene sequencing, we assayed the cutaneous bacterial communities of 51 matched triplets and characterized these samples using community data analysis techniques. Intragroup Unifrac β diversity revealed increasing diversity from control to unaffected to lesion specimens. Likewise, principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) revealed separation of the lesion samples from unaffected and control along the first axis, suggesting that psoriasis is a major contributor to the observed diversity. The taxonomic richness and evenness decreased in both lesion and unaffected communities compared to control. These differences are explained by the combined increased abundance of the four major skin-associated genera (Corynebacterium, Propionibacterium, Staphylococcus, and Streptococcus), which present a potentially useful predictor for clinical skin type. Psoriasis samples also showed significant univariate decreases in relative abundances and strong classification performance of Cupriavidus, Flavisolibacter, Methylobacterium, and Schlegelella genera versus controls. The cutaneous microbiota separated into two distinct clusters, which we call cutaneotypes: (1) Proteobacteria-associated microbiota, and (2) Firmicutes-associated and Actinobacteria-associated microbiota. Cutaneotype 2 is enriched in lesion specimens compared to control (odds ratio 3.52 (95% CI 1.44 to 8.98), P <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that psoriasis induces physiological changes both at the lesion site and at the systemic level, which select for specific differential microbiota among the assayed clinical skin types. These differences in microbial community structure in psoriasis patients are potentially of pathophysiologic and diagnostic significance.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/2049-2618-1-31

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 53 references

Cited by

See all 441

Metadata

Authors
Alekseyenko, A. V., Perez-Perez, G. I., De Souza, A., Strober, B., Gao, Z., Bihan, M., Li, K., Methé, B. A., & Blaser, M. J.
Venue
Microbiome
Published
2013-12
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
31-31
ISSN
2049-2618 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2146131641
Cited by
441
References
53
FWCI
20.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Community differentiation of the cutaneous microbiota in psoriasis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/2049-2618-1-31
The paper
Alekseyenko, A. V., Perez-Perez, G. I., De Souza, A., Strober, B., Gao, Z., Bihan, M., Li, K., Methé, B. A., & Blaser, M. J. (2013). Community differentiation of the cutaneous microbiota in psoriasis. Microbiome. https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-2618-1-31

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.