Talk:Skin flora

Remove anthropogenic POV
I found this: - it made me realise that this article should perhaps be renamed human skin flora. Maybe there isn't enough info on other species to warrant this move yet but I think this article (and the relevant paper) probably deserve a mention. Smartse (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and this comment also applies to skin which could better be called human skin (an article title that presently redirects to Human skin color). One issue here is that humans are very peculiar animals in that they are the only nonpelt covered primates and amongst the few such mammals (others include certain mole rats, sea mammals, armadillos, elephants). (Non pelt since human skin contains many hairs--but these do not function to create a protective fur covering). Indeed, humans are even more unusual since the epidermis is soft not leathery as in sea mammals, armadillos, and elephants. And perhaps even unique since it also secrets large amounts of sweat. It is interesting to mention amphibians since one of the big evolutionary events amongst land vertebrates has been changes in "skin" covering. That of amphibians is moist and can dry out, that of reptiles is sealed. Dinosaurs and birds evolved feathers; mammals evolved hair, sweat glands and perspiration. These has been a paper that discusses this issue. These skin differences create very different environments for flora. I will try in the next few days add comments to reflect this wider context.--LittleHow (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Should have said before that it's a great article btw. Smartse (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

New study
This paper should probably be incorporated. Smartse (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Biome / biota
Biome is an ecosystem and a microbiome is a microecosystem. Biota is the set of organisms living in a biome. Here, the microbiome is the skin itself, and the microbiota is the set of microorganisms. Microbiome and microbiota are not synonimous. Skin flora = skin microbiota, but skin flora ≠ skin microbiome. That should be checked.--Miguelferig (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Flora refers to plants, and does not technically include bacteria. Microbiota includes everything, and should be used to name this page instead of microflora. 188.29.82.69 (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the use of microbiota, but I disagree with microbiome. That's what I said.--Miguelferig (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Microbiota (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Addition to Skin Diseases
Hello everyone! I am planning to add some more information in the skin diseases section since the skin diseases articles themselves do not offer much information in relation the skin microbiome. It would be quite useful to reference research studies specifically on how the skin microbiome is related to those diseases and whether the knowledge offers any potential treatments by manipulating the skin microbiome. I have a rough draft in my sandbox right now and wanted everyone's opinions. Thanks! Shreya.guru (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

chlorine ?
its effect upon ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.148.166 (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Skin flora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110623011743/http://cellulitistreatmentnow.com/ to http://www.cellulitistreatmentnow.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101210013519/http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/hmp/ to http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/hmp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No reference for "around 1000 species"
Two references are given but the ScienceNOW blurb only refers to the first ref (the Science paper) which is a 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing study. Such are unable to classify to the species level, and even have a 10-20% error rate on the genus level. So how many are there really on the skin? --SCIdude (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)