Next Article in Journal
Lysin and Lytic Phages Reduce Vibrio Counts in Live Feed and Fish Larvae
Previous Article in Journal
A Journey into the Evolution of Human Host-Oral Microbiome Relationship through Ancient Dental Calculus: A Scoping Review
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Examining Sound, Light, and Vibrations as Tools to Manage Microbes and Support Holobionts, Ecosystems, and Technologies

by
Rodney R. Dietert
1,* and
Janice M. Dietert
2
1
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
2
Performance Plus Consulting, Hereford, AZ 85615, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2024, 12(5), 905; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12050905
Submission received: 25 March 2024 / Revised: 27 April 2024 / Accepted: 28 April 2024 / Published: 30 April 2024

Abstract

:
The vast array of interconnected microorganisms across Earth’s ecosystems and within holobionts has been called the “Internet of Microbes.” Bacteria and archaea are masters of energy and information collection, storage, transformation, and dissemination using both “wired” and wireless (at a distance) functions. Specific tools affecting microbial energy and information functions offer effective strategies for managing microbial populations within, between, and beyond holobionts. This narrative review focuses on microbial management using a subset of physical modifiers of microbes: sound and light (as well as related vibrations). These are examined as follows: (1) as tools for managing microbial populations, (2) as tools to support new technologies, (3) as tools for healing humans and other holobionts, and (4) as potential safety dangers for microbial populations and their holobionts. Given microbial sensitivity to sound, light, and vibrations, it is critical that we assign a higher priority to the effects of these physical factors on microbial populations and microbe-laden holobionts. We conclude that specific sound, light, and/or vibrational conditions are significant therapeutic tools that can help support useful microbial populations and help to address the ongoing challenges of holobiont disease. We also caution that inappropriate sound, light, and/or vibration exposure can represent significant hazards that require greater recognition.

1. Introduction

Research into human, animal, and plant holobionts (higher eukaryote–microorganism composites) along with planetary microbial life has demonstrated the importance of being able to support, protect, and manage our Earth’s most predominant lifeform: microorganisms. Humans are fundamentally composed of the host and numerous microbiomes (e.g., gut, skin, and airways). Given the fact that humans and most other holobionts on Earth are majority microbial by several criteria, usefully managing microbes should be a prime directive of virtually every earth-directed scientific discipline and especially every medical/public health provider.
Yet, this is far from the case, especially when it comes to human holobiont health and wellness. Calls for microbiome-first approaches to medicine and public health [1,2], and more inclusion of microbiome considerations in public health initiatives [3], have come during a period when holistic, personalized wellness has been institutionally and increasingly ignored. Other examples involve the lack of protection for microbiomes. Two prominent examples concern the world-wide approval and distribution of the antimicrobial toxicant glyphosate [4], and the continued pervasive inclusion of Akkermansia-toxic, food emulsifier obesogens (e.g., polysorbate 80) in most processed foods [5]. The cost of ignoring the microbiome despite evidence of its increasing importance plays out across a lifetime. For example, microbiome seeding, feeding, and balance controls the critical development of the immune and other systems in early life [6,7] and also confers protection against the following: uncontrolled fear with mental health consequences [8], regulation of pain and inflammation [9,10], neurobehavioral disorders [11], age-accumulated oxidative damage reducing telomere length and longevity [12], disrupted circadian rhythms [13], and sleep disorders [14]. In short, persistently ignoring microbes and the human microbiome on a global scale would be expected to degrade and compromise the health and lifespan of humanity.
Because of the need to assign greater priority to the protection of useful microorganisms, we are undertaking a series of reviews considering underappreciated physical factors that readily affect holobiont-connected and other microorganisms. Across Earth’s microorganisms (also called the “Internet of Microbes”), communication among and between microorganisms and their hosts occurs in variety of ways. This was discussed in an early review by Reguera [15]. The communication can be wired (via nanowires) or wireless and includes transmission via sound, light (biophotons), and bioelectron exchanges, as well as electromagnetic and chemical signaling. Examples of these functions in action are evident in the processes of microbial management (e.g., rebiosis), restorative ecology and agriculture, and physiological healing (e.g., the microimmunosome). Importantly, these communication processes are not necessarily independent of each other. For example, Matarèse et al. [16] provided an in-depth discussion of the intrinsic linkage between electromagnetic forces and acoustic vibration.
In the present narrative review we seek to accomplish the following objectives: (1) describe the fundamental properties of microorganisms that shows us a path for improved management of microbes; (2) examine how conscious microbial networks both affect and respond to sound, light, and vibrations; (3) describe the role of sound, light, and vibrational approaches in driving technological improvements; (4) describe how sound, light, and vibrational tools offer great promise for holobiont and ecological healing; and (5) conclude that inappropriate use of or exposure to these physical factors can present a significant hazard for much-needed microorganisms as well as humans and other holobionts.

2. Examples of Special Bacterial Functions That Have Holobiont/Systems Implications

2.1. Communication at a Distance

Significant evidence exists that microorganisms provide a route through which holobionts can communicate at a distance and make changes based on information that originated at a distance. A prime example of this is among plants, which use soil microorganisms (mycelia) as a communication channel and sentient sentries for early alerts to aphid and other pest attacks [17,18]. Plants separated by distance use this microorganism-enabled communication to arm themselves specifically for the impending insect attack. Additionally, the soil microbiome has been shown to affect plant host defenses in general [19,20]. If plants operate at a distance by using The Internet of Microbes, is this the status quo among other holobionts?

2.2. Quantum Bacterial Antenna Networks and Applications

In Dietert and Dietert [21], we discussed the ground-breaking research into complex quantum antennae of specialized bacteria. Specific photosynthesizing bacteria have unique capacities to efficiently collect light energy, rapidly pass the energy through a series of proteins and protein complexes, and effectively transform and transfer this energy over long distances. Wang et al. [22] describe the light-originating energy transfer function of purple bacteria using pairwise protein interactions that result in a remarkably efficient, rapid, and extensive energy distribution system. Kundu et al. [23] found that energy transfer from light-harvesting complexes within Rhodopseudomonas molischianum could attain 90% efficiency via the quantum motion of nuclei. The quantum processes involved in antenna-driven energy collection and transfer have been described by a number of researchers [24,25,26].
Engineered antennae systems have also been designed to facilitate such processes as biodegradation. For example, Sezgen et al. [27] have described opportunities for multiscale communications through the engineering of the bacterial antennae systems. Additionally, Chen et al. [28] have discussed using bacterial foraging (BF)–based clustering strategies to improve the lifespan of sensor communication networks. Biohydrogen production also includes bacteria sometimes combined with nanotechnology [29]. Finally, the quantum, purple bacteria, light-harvesting system has inspired researchers to create a related artificial polymeric, supramolecular, and column-based light-harvesting platform that offers not only confined and efficient energy transfer but also full-color tunable emission that is suitable for information encryption applications [30]. This illustrates an example of the specialized-bacterial-function-to-breakthrough-technology development that exists.

3. Sound and Light Frequencies in Holobiont Cellular Life

Among the many ways that microbes and particular bacteria and archaea collect information, generate energy, and communicate with each other and holobionts are mechanisms using sound and light frequencies as well as electrical and magnetic fields and signals [15,31]. Of course, within holobionts, these same physical factors can have profound effects on the status of holobiont health. The human body itself generates certain sound signatures [32]. Additionally, externally applied sound frequency vibrations can have significant effects on the whole human, as when applied in vibroacoustic therapy [33,34].
When it comes to light, the human body “glimmers” via the generation of weak photon emissions [35]. Calcerrada and Garcia-Ruiz [36] recently reviewed the literature on ultra-weak photon emissions (UPE) emitted from the human body. The authors stressed that it can be used to gauge the internal status of the individual. Because tumor cells have been found to emit increased UPE compared to non-cancerous human cells of the same type, UPE has been seen as a potentially useful tool in early cancer diagnosis [37]. Also termed ultra-weak bioluminescence, Du et al. [38] described how UPE can be used as an oxidative metabolism indicator and is a useful biomarker for specific areas of health vs. disease (e.g., metabolic, skin, and cancer diseases). The researchers also considered UPE when viewed through the lens of traditional Chinese medicine [38]. Finally, UPE has been advocated as a useful tool to detect mitochondrial function vs. dysfunction [39].
Beyond humans, Prasad et al. [40] showed that alterations in UPE comprise a sensitive signal for injury in plants (Arabidopsis thaliana). Processes affecting the levels of UPE in bacteria have also been examined by Laager et al. [41]. One of the more recently developed luminescence technologies is aggregation-induced emissions (AIE). Wang et al. [42] described the ways in which AIE can be used for cell, tissue, and microbe imaging, detection, and monitoring of biomarkers and microbes, as an approach to combat disease.

4. The Significance of Vibrations

Vibrations are a fundamental signature of life including that of microbes, as described by Kasas et al. [43]. The activity of microbes and cells has a vibrational signature that is extinguished as the cell dies. Kasas et al. [43] showed that nanomotion detectors can reveal microbial life with great sensitivity, and that the vibration fluctuations are largely extinguished as a microbial cell dies due to chemical or physical agents. The presence and status of even individual microbes can be measured based on vibrations. Raman spectroscopy has been a useful tool to identify phenotypes of environmental microbes based on their specific molecular vibration profile [44]. Since microbes and other cells have their own vibrational signatures, it is not surprising that exposure to externally sourced sound, light, and electromagnetic vibrations produces alterations in microbial populations. Nanovibration has been used as a preventative tool that blocks adhesion and biofilm formation by Escherichia coli [45]. This narrative review focuses on the sound and light components of vibrationally induced alterations.

5. Sound and Acoustics: Effects on Microbiota and beyond

Because sound is a fundamental component of most biological systems, use of sound to manipulate the status of biological materials is gaining ground as a strategy. In fact, the entire field of the study of sound’s effects on biological and other material is known as cymatics. Attention has also been directed in the application of sound, music, and cymatics toward improving human health. For example, a recent review by Liu et al. [46] focused on sub-megahertz (MHz) acoustical waves and their usefulness for medical diagnostics and therapeutics using micromanipulation-based technologies. Sound frequencies are proving useful in both the detection [47] and treatment of human disease [33,48,49]. Examples of diseases and conditions where sound frequency therapy appears promising are the treatment of Parkinson’s disease [50] and other neurological conditions [51] as well as the promotion of wound healing [52].
Sound frequencies are known to play a key factor in communication among microbes, interkingdom communication, and regulation of individual microbes and microbial communities [18,53,54]. One of the early studies on the use of sound by bacteria for communication and on the impact of different sound frequencies on bacterial responses was conducted by Matsuhashi et al. [55]. Such early studies have led to the realization that sound is a tool that can specifically manage microbial populations both increasing the effectiveness of microbes for industrial purposes and promoting improved health of both holobionts (including humans) and even large ecological communities. Znidersic and Watson [56] recently described how sound applications could be used to restore damaged landscapes through the return of interkingdom populations including microorganisms.
The fundamental connection between sound and microbes means that much greater attention is required concerning sound and microorganisms. Protection against deleterious exposure to certain sound frequencies is critical to protect microbes involved in human, animal, and plant health and those supporting ecological media (e.g., soil) and landscapes. Acoustic frequency and strength matters, as per the microbial outcomes. For example, Keramati et al. [57] illustrated in their review that ultrasound (greater than 20 kHz) exposure can produce destruction or alteration of many bacteria while increasing the growth of yeast, and infrasound (frequency below 20 Hz) can likewise decrease certain bacteria’s growth but increase the growth of other microbes. In turn, sound frequencies can be used to optimize a variety of applications including the following: rebiosis/reversing microbial dysbiosis-promoted disease as well as aspects of everyday life (e.g., fermented food and beverage production, enhanced soil for crops/gardening, microbe-driven pollution cleanup, fuel cell efficiencies, and other bioelectric generation applications). Finally, it is important to recognize that sound and light may be more connected than generally assumed [58]. For example, Kassewitz et al. [59] demonstrated that when dolphins focused elocution sounds on specific objects, the reflected sound was captured as images on a CymaScope and displayed as both 2-D and 3-D visuals of the exact same objects. Their sounds have embedded within them the visual image of their focus. Hence, there is a cymatics connection between an auditory sound and a specific visual object that embodies the specific sound.
Table 1 illustrates examples of both review articles and research studies on auditory sound affecting microbial populations [15,16,56,57,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72].
There are two extremes of sound frequencies that can play significant roles in affecting microbial populations. These are the sounds above the general human hearing range, termed ultrasound, and the sound frequencies below human hearing, termed infrasound. Ultrasound frequencies (greater than 20 kilohertz, kHz) have been used extensively for decades in medical imaging [73,74] and food preservation applications [75]. Infrasound frequencies (below 20 Hz) extend to below the normal human hearing range [76] but are in the range used by several large mammals (e.g., baleen whales and elephants) and birds [77,78,79]. The issue of safety is always a concern. It should be noted that different human organs and tissues are reported to possess specific vibrational frequencies normally falling in the infrasonic range [34,80]. This may explain why sound and vibration therapies are a logical progression for correcting dysfunctions [34]. Microbial beats (sound vibrations from the human microbiome) have been incorporated with technologies as a strategy of both education and analysis [81]. Vibrational spectroscopy is also proving to be useful for microbial analysis in disease vs. healthy comparisons [82].
Table 2 provides examples of ultra- and infrasounds and microbe alterations [83,84,85,86,87,88,89].

6. Light- and Radiation-Frequency Modulation of Microbiota

The study of light-frequency modulation of microbes and other living organisms falls under the general term photobiomodulation (PBM) [90]. As described by Santos et al. [91], photobiomodulation traces back at least to Finsen who won the Nobel prize in Medicine and Physiology for his light-based treatment of both cutaneous tuberculosis and smallpox [92,93]. The term photobiomodulation has become associated with therapy using nonionizing light sources (e.g., LED, lasers, and broadband light) in the visible and infrared spectrums [91,94]. The therapeutic frequencies encompass a range of approximately 600–1200 nm with different frequencies having different skin penetration capacities [91]. Photobiomodulation therapy has been shown to have applications ranging from the treatment of inflammatory and metabolic diseases [95] to dermatological diseases [96], neurological conditions [97], and oral diseases [98]. Anytime misregulated inflammation is being addressed with therapies, it is important to look at the microimmunosome as an initiation point of inflammatory regulation [12,99]. Microimmunosome status is also connected to global intersystem interactions such as those that control circadian rhythms and sleep [12]. Hence, awareness of environmental light exposures and their optimization (e.g., minimizing light-driven circadian disruptions), as well as specific light therapies, are complimentary for overall wellbeing and health.
As with most of the physical–chemical factors discussed in this review, the impact of light on microbes depends upon the nature and contact of the specific microbial population/community and the frequency, intensity, and duration of the given light exposure. In this regard, we provide examples of the range of effects within a narrative review rather than an exhaustive consideration of the massive range of microbes and the full range of different exposures to light.
Different spectra, intensities, and durations of radiation/light exposures can have different effects on microorganisms. Antimicrobial light and radiation exposure represent a major approach to provide food safety and various anticontamination strategies. For example, Shahi et al. [100] provided a comprehensive review of the capacities of radiation and light emission to inactivate viruses and microorganisms in food processing and other routes of pathogenic transition. For nonionizing radiation, microwave, ultraviolet, infrared, laser light, and radiofrequency were considered. Ultraviolet light exposure has long been an approach for microorganism inactivation. Masjoudi et al. [101] reviewed the comparative sensitivity of bacteria, protozoa, viruses, and additional microorganisms to UV-light exposures drawing upon 250 different studies of UV antimicrobial experiments. Li et al. [102] used multibeam excitation and multiwavelength irradiation to inactivate pathogenic microorganisms in water. The emission treatment was found to produce high-efficiency DNA damage and reduced repair while causing membrane damage via reactive oxygen species generation.
In contrast to broad band UV strategies for microbe inactivation, a recent clinical pilot study on human female volunteers conducted by Bosman et al. [103] demonstrated that exposure of skin to narrow-band ultraviolet light shifted the gut microbiome, significantly increasing both alpha diversity (diversity within a sample) and beta diversity (diversity between samples) in the nonvitamin D-supplementing group, enriching populations of Lachnospiracheae, Rikenellaceae, Desulfobacteraceae, Clostridiales vadin BB60 group, Clostridia Family XIII, Coriobacteriaceae, Marinifilaceae, and Ruminococcus. A significant increase in serum 25(OH)D concentrations was also found in the nonsupplementing group, and this increase was correlated with the relative abundance of Lachnospiracea. Increased gut microbiome abundance of Lachnospiraceae was also observed by Ghaly et al. [104] following skin exposure in mice to narrow-band (311 nm) ultraviolet light. Narrow-band ultraviolet light phototherapy has also been reported to be effective in skin microbiome management of inflammatory allergic dermatitis, as reviewed in Dewi et al. [105].
In a recent study, phototherapy treatment (blue LED light with a peak wavelength of 425–475 nm) of jaundiced infants was found to significantly change the gut microbiota profiles (fecal samples) and secondary bile acid profiles. Infants in treatment for jaundice who received antibiotics differed in their gut microbiota profiles from those receiving light therapy without antibiotics [106]. Additionally, Santos et al. [91] provided a recent review of photobiomodulation therapy as it applies to the human microbiome with an emphasis on red or near-infrared light treatments and the vaginal microbiome.
Light can affect signaling, metabolic activities, and intra-kingdom vs. inter-kingdom communications involving microbes. For example, Xi et al. [107] found that soil-microbe feedback loops guide plant (tree) seedlings in their overall competition depending upon light intensity, the specific mix of soil microbes, and the nature of the plant community (e.g., competitive or noncompetitive trees). Results from the study can help to guide strategies involving light and soil microbes in the restoration of ecologically damaged areas.
Table 3 illustrates examples of the effects of light on microorganisms [91,94,95,103,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125].
The studies and reviews in Table 3 illustrate several key points: (1) light (duration and type) dramatically impacts circadian rhythm, and this is significantly linked to microbiome status and risk of disease. The microbiome, circadian clock, and aging linkage was previously stressed by us [12]. (2) The type of light is critical, and LED white light is not beneficial for the human microbiome or for health. (3) Light pollution can alter the microbiome and increase the risk of inflammatory-driven diseases. (4) Both infrared and ultraviolet light can be therapeutic for microbiome dysbiosis and certain disease conditions. Light exposure of the skin effects not only the skin microbiome but also the gut microbiome. (5) Light exposure impacts both the microimmunosome and the gut–brain axis. (6) Light conditions and treatments apply to human microbiome and human health as well as to the parallel in agriculture (production animals, plants, and soil) and environmental ecosystems. Light-based therapies represent a powerful tool for microbe management as well as for disease therapy. Attention to light conditions is critical for safety to avoid human, agricultural, companion animal, and/or ecological damage.

7. Conclusions

Fundamental quantum properties of microbes, as demonstrated most widely in bacteria, provide a ready path to microbial management not only within holobionts but also across ecological and planetary scales. This is illustrated in our present narrative review of two key microbial properties: sound and light, and the capacity of microbial populations to respond to externally applied sound and light frequencies and associated vibrations. Because microbial populations are key to human and other holobiont health and wellbeing, and because they are also integral to ecological and biogeochemical status of the planet, useful application of sound and light approaches are likely to be of greater importance in the near future. Knowledge and appropriate use of these tools is critical to ensure that holistic holobiont healing and well-being is achieved, and that holobionts as well as needed ecological microbes are not damaged from hazardous, inappropriate exposures to the same physical fields. The present review also emphasizes the interconnectedness of Earth’s microbial populations via both wired and wireless information flow via the Internet of Microbes. As a result, both local and at-a-distance effects of physical field changes should be expected and anticipated.
Consideration of sound and light as well as electric and magnetic approaches for human and other holobiont health takes on an added importance given the underperformance of pharma-based Western medicine relative to chronic disease cures [1]. In a series of recent publications, we argued that since the mid-20th century, pharma-driven medicine and public health have not only failed to reduce the prevalence of chronic diseases but have also overseen the growth of polypharmacy and human microbiome and microimmunosome degradation [2,8,126,127]. Hence, it is a useful time to seek alternatives [128]. For this reason, it has become more important than ever to expand the range of microbiome-supportive health and wellness strategies that allow us to manage microbes not only in the human holobionts but across the network of microbial reservoirs on the planet.
This narrative review builds upon a prior review dealing with ancient and alternative healing modalities that have been shown to produce modifications in holobiont microbiomes and/or microbial populations. The significance of the present narrative review is the focus on two functions used by microorganisms to interact with the environment and each other: sound and light. These two field-based approaches to microbe management are also important in technologies ranging from environmental remediation to sustainable energy and future agriculture. One can expect that, just as these tools are having a positive impact on sustainable living, their expanded application to human holobiont health and wellness will be key to microbiome-inclusive medicine.
Finally, it seems clear that future research must look beyond just the microbes bounded by the human body and consider the ways in which inter-holobiont and holobiont–ecological microorganism connections are affected by physical changes in sound, light, vibrations, and electric and magnetic fields. The Internet of Microbes is real [129] and microorganism research shows us that we are truly not separated from Earth’s microbes.

Author Contributions

For this narrative review, R.R.D. led the drafting of each section and overall content. R.R.D. also drafted the Tables and Graphical Abstract. J.M.D. contributed significant content to the sections and Tables on sound. J.M.D. also led editing and organization of the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. It is a part of a Special Issue, entitled “Using Microbial Functions to Improve Health, Technology, and Applications”, of the journal Microorganisms, with Rodney R. Dietert as its Guest Editor.

Data Availability Statement

Data discussed in this review article are available via the cited references.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Dietert, R.R. Microbiome First Medicine in Health and Safety. Biomedicines 2021, 9, 1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Dietert, R.R. Microbiome First Approaches to Rescue Public Health and Reduce Human Suffering. Biomedicines 2021, 9, 1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Finlay, B.B.; Amato, K.R.; Azad, M.; Blaser, M.J.; Bosch, T.C.G.; Chu, H.; Dominguez-Bello, M.G.; Ehrlich, S.D.; Elinav, E.; Geva-Zatorsky, N.; et al. The hygiene hypothesis, the COVID pandemic, and consequences for the human microbiome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2010217118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Walsh, L.; Hill, C.; Ross, R.P. Impact of glyphosate (RoundupTM) on the composition and functionality of the gut microbiome. Gut Microbes 2023, 15, 2263935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Naimi, S.; Viennois, E.; Gewirtz, A.T.; Chassaing, B. Direct impact of commonly used dietary emulsifiers on human gut microbiota. Microbiome 2021, 9, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dogra, S.K.; Chung, C.K.; Wang, D.; Sakwinska, O.; Colombo Mottaz, S.; Sprenger, N. Nurturing the Early Life Gut Microbiome and Immune Maturation for Long Term Health. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Parkin, K.; Christophersen, C.T.; Verhasselt, V.; Cooper, M.N.; Martino, D. Risk Factors for Gut Dysbiosis in Early Life. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Dietert, R.R.; Dietert, J.M. The Human Superorganism: Using Microbes for Freedom vs. Fear. Appl. Microbiol. 2023, 3, 883–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dietert, R.R.; Dietert, J.M. Microbiome First Approaches in Pain Prevention and Management. Am. J. Biomed. Sci. Res. 2021, 14, 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Singh, R.P.; Niharika, J.; Kondepudi, K.K.; Bishnoi, M.; Tingirikari, J.M.R. Recent understanding of human milk oligosaccharides in establishing infant gut microbiome and roles in immune system. Food Res. Int. 2022, 151, 110884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Laue, H.E.; Coker, M.O.; Madan, J.C. The developing microbiome from birth to 3 years: The gut-brain axis and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Front. Pediatr. 2022, 10, 815885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Dietert, R.R.; Dietert, J.M. Using Microbiome-Based Approaches to Deprogram Chronic Disorders and Extend the Healthspan following Adverse Childhood Experiences. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Matenchuk, B.A.; Mandhane, P.J.; Kozyrskyj, A.L. Sleep, circadian rhythm, and gut microbiota. Sleep Med. Rev. 2020, 53, 101340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Wang, Y.; van de Wouw, M.; Drogos, L.; Vaghef-Mehrabani, E.; Reimer, R.A.; Tomfohr-Madsen, L.; Giesbrecht, G.F. Sleep and the gut microbiota in preschool-aged children. Sleep 2022, 45, zsac020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Reguera, G. When microbial conversations get physical. Trends Microbiol. 2011, 19, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Matarèse, B.F.; Lad, J.; Seymour, C.; Schofield, P.N.; Mothersill, C. Bio-acoustic signaling; exploring the potential of sound as a mediator of low-dose radiation and stress responses in the environment. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2022, 98, 1083–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Babikova, Z.; Gilbert, L.; Bruce, T.J.; Birkett, M.; Caulfield, J.C.; Woodcock, C.; Pickett, J.A.; Johnson, D. Underground signals carried through common mycelial networks warn neighbouring plants of aphid attack. Ecol. Lett. 2013, 16, 835–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Sharifi, R.; Ryu, C.M. Social networking in crop plants: Wired and wireless cross-plant communications. Plant Cell Environ. 2021, 44, 1095–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. van Dijk, L.J.; Abdelfattah, A.; Ehrlén, J.; Tack, A.J. Soil microbiomes drive aboveground plant–pathogen–insect interactions. Oikos 2022, 2022, e09366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bukhat, S.; Imran, A.; Javaid, S.; Shahid, M.; Majeed, A.; Naqqash, T. Communication of plants with microbial world: Exploring the regulatory networks for PGPR mediated defense signaling. Microbiol. Res. 2020, 238, 126486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dietert, R.R.; Dietert, J.M. The Embodied Microbiome. Am. J. Biomed. Sci. Res. 2023, 20, 324–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wang, D.; Fiebig, O.C.; Harris, D.; Toporik, H.; Ji, Y.; Chuang, C.; Nairat, M.; Tong, A.L.; Ogren, J.I.; Hart, S.M.; et al. Elucidating interprotein energy transfer dynamics within the antenna network from purple bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2023, 120, e2220477120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Kundu, S.; Dani, R.; Makri, N. Tight inner ring architecture and quantum motion of nuclei enable efficient energy transfer in bacterial light harvesting. Sci. Adv. 2022, 8, eadd0023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Higgins, J.S.; Lloyd, L.T.; Sohail, S.H.; Allodi, M.A.; Otto, J.P.; Saer, R.G.; Wood, R.E.; Massey, S.C.; Ting, P.C.; Blankenship, R.E.; et al. Photosynthesis tunes quantum-mechanical mixing of electronic and vibrational states to steer exciton energy transfer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2018240118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Delgado, F.; Enríquez, M. Quantum Entanglement and State-Transference in Fenna–Matthews–Olson Complexes: A Post-Experimental Simulation Analysis in the Computational Biology Domain. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 10862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Mančal, T. A decade with quantum coherence: How our past became classical and the future turned quantum. Chem. Phys. 2020, 532, 110663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sezgen, O.F.; Erden, O.K.; Haciosmanoglu, N.; Lacin, M.E.; Yalcinkaya, A.D.; Ozdil, Z.C.C.; Seker, U.O.S.; Dumanli, S. A Repeater Antenna System Utilizing Genetically Modified Bacteria for Multiscale Communications. In Proceedings of the 2022 16th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP), Madrid, Spain, 27 March–1 April 2022; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2022; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  28. Chen, X.; Cai, H.; Xue, S. Quantum-based optical sensors for enhanced energy-efficient wireless communication. Opt. Quant. Electron. 2024, 56, 413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Karthikeyan, B.; Velvizhi, G. A state-of-the-art on the application of nanotechnology for enhanced biohydrogen production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024, 52, 536–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mu, B.; Hao, X.; Luo, X.; Yang, Z.; Lu, H.; Tian, W. Bioinspired polymeric supramolecular columns as efficient yet controllable artificial light-harvesting platform. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Tobias, N.J.; Brehm, J.; Kresovic, D.; Brameyer, S.; Bode, H.B.; Heermann, R. 2020. New vocabulary for bacterial communication. ChemBioChem 2020, 21, 759–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Noh, H.W.; Ahn, C.-G.; Chae, S.-H.; Ku, Y.; Sim, J.Y. Multichannel Acoustic Spectroscopy of the Human Body for Inviolable Biometric Authentication. Biosensors 2022, 12, 700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bartel, L.; Mosabbir, A. Possible Mechanisms for the Effects of Sound Vibration on Human Health. Healthcare 2021, 9, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Kerna, N.A.; Chawla, S.; Carsrud, N.D.V.; Holets, H.M.; Brown, S.M.; Flores, J.V.; Pruitt, K.D.; Nwokorie, U.; Anderson, J., II; Roberson, R.; et al. Sound Therapy: Vibratory Frequencies of Cells in Healthy and Disease States. EC Clin. Med. Case Rep. 2022, 5, 112–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kobayashi, M.; Kikuchi, D.; Okamura, H. Imaging of ultraweak spontaneous photon emission from human body displaying diurnal rhythm. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e6256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Calcerrada, M.; Garcia-Ruiz, C. Human ultraweak photon emission: Key analytical aspects, results and future trends—A review. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2019, 49, 368–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Murugan, N.J.; Persinger, M.A.; Karbowski, L.M.; Dotta, B.T. Ultraweak Photon Emissions as a Non-Invasive, Early-Malignancy Detection Tool: An In Vitro and In Vivo Study. Cancers 2020, 12, 1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Du, J.; Deng, T.; Cao, B.; Wang, Z.; Yang, M.; Han, J. The application and trend of ultra-weak photon emission in biology and medicine. Front. Chem. 2023, 11, 1140128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Van Wijk, R.; Van Wijk, E.; Pang, J.; Yang, M. Integrating ultra-weak photon emission analysis in mitochondrial research. Front. Physiol. 2020, 11, 540573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Prasad, A.; Gouripeddi, P.; Devireddy, H.R.N.; Ovsii, A.; Rachakonda, D.P.; Wijk, R.V.; Pospíšil, P. Spectral Distribution of Ultra-Weak Photon Emission as a Response to Wounding in Plants: An In Vivo Study. Biology 2020, 9, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Laager, F.M.; Becker, N.M.; Park, S.H.; Soh, K.S. Effects of Lac Operon activation, deletion of the Yhha gene, and the removal of oxygen on the ultra-weak photon emission of Escherichia coli. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 2009, 28, 240–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Wang, H.; Li, Q.; Alam, P.; Bai, H.; Bhalla, V.; Bryce, M.R.; Cao, M.; Chen, C.; Chen, S.; Chen, X.; et al. Aggregation-induced emission (AIE), life and health. ACS Nano 2023, 17, 14347–14405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Kasas, S.; Ruggeri, F.S.; Benadiba, C.; Maillard, C.; Stupar, P.; Tournu, H.; Dietler, G.; Longo, G. Detecting nanoscale vibrations as signature of life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 378–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Cui, D.; Kong, L.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, C. In situ identification of environmental microorganisms with Raman spectroscopy. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol. 2022, 11, 100187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Lin, F.; Yuan, S.; Han, W. Effective prevention of Escherichia coli biofilm on materials by nano-vibration. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2021, 608, 125610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Liu, Y.; Yin, Q.; Luo, Y.; Huang, Z.; Cheng, Q.; Zhang, W.; Zhou, B.; Zhou, Y.; Ma, Z. Manipulation with sound and vibration: A review on the micromanipulation system based on sub-MHz acoustic waves. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2023, 96, 106441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cook, J.; Umar, M.; Khalili, F.; Taebi, A. Body acoustics for the non-invasive diagnosis of medical conditions. Bioengineering 2022, 9, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Levy, J.; Barrett, D.L.; Harris, N.; Jeong, J.J.; Yang, X.; Chen, S.C. High-frequency ultrasound in clinical dermatology: A review. Ultrasound J. 2021, 13, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Rufo, J.; Zhang, P.; Zhong, R.; Lee, L.P.; Huang, T.J. A sound approach to advancing healthcare systems: The future of biomedical acoustics. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 3459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Calvano, A.; Timmermann, L.; Oehrn, C.R.; Weber, I. Binaural acoustic stimulation in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Front. Neurol. 2023, 14, 1167006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Giammalva, G.R.; Gagliardo, C.; Marrone, S.; Paolini, F.; Gerardi, R.M.; Umana, G.E.; Yağmurlu, K.; Chaurasia, B.; Scalia, G.; Midiri, F.; et al. Focused Ultrasound in Neuroscience. State of the Art and Future Perspectives. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Chen, L.; Zheng, Q.; Chen, X.; Wang, J.; Wang, L. Low-frequency ultrasound enhances vascular endothelial growth factor expression, thereby promoting the wound healing in diabetic rats. Exp. Ther. Med. 2019, 18, 4040–4048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Xu, D.; Xiao, Y.F. Listening to the sound of a bacterium. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2020, 15, 420–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gil-Santos, E.; Ruz, J.J.; Malvar, O.; Favero, I.; Lemaître, A.; Kosaka, P.M.; García-López, S.; Calleja, M.; Tamayo, J. Optomechanical detection of vibration modes of a single bacterium. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2020, 15, 469–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Matsuhashi, M.; Pankrushina, A.N.; Takeuchi, S.; Ohshima, H.; Miyoi, H.; Endoh, K.; Murayama, K.; Watanabe, H.; Endo, S.; Tobi, M.; et al. Production of sound waves by bacterial cells and the response of bacterial cells to sound. J. Gen. Appl. Microbiol. 1998, 44, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Znidersic, E.; Watson, D.M. Acoustic restoration: Using soundscapes to benchmark and fast-track recovery of ecological communities. Ecol. Lett. 2022, 25, 1597–1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Keramati, A.; Shariati, F.P.; Tavakoli, O.; Akbari, Z.; Rezaei, M. The effect of audible sound frequency on the growth and beta-carotene production of Dunaliella salina. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2021, 141, 373–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Reid, J.S. The Special Relationship between Sound and Light, with Implications for Sound and Light Therapy. Subtle Energy Energy Med. 2006, 17, 215–247. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kassewitz, J.; Hyson, M.T.; Reid, J.S.; Barrera, R.L. A phenomenon discovered while imaging dolphin echolocation sounds. J. Mar. Sci. Res. Dev. 2016, 6, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Cui, B.; Su, D.; Li, W.; She, X.; Zhang, M.; Wang, R.; Zhai, Q. Effects of chronic noise exposure on the microbiome-gut-brain axis in senescence-accelerated prone mice: Implications for Alzheimer’s disease. J. Neuroinflamm. 2018, 15, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Wassermann, B.; Korsten, L.; Berg, G. Plant Health and Sound Vibration: Analyzing Implications of the Microbiome in Grape Wine Leaves. Pathogens 2021, 10, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gu, S.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, Y. Effects of sound exposure on the growth and intracellular macromolecular synthesis of E. coli k-12. PeerJ 2016, 4, e1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Zhang, Z.; Wu, Y.; Zhou, S.; Fu, P.; Yan, H. Effects of Music and White Noise Exposure on the Gut Microbiota, Oxidative Stress, and Immune-Related Gene Expression of Mice. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 2272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Harris, A.; Lindsay, M.A.; Ganley, A.R.D.; Jeffs, A.; Villas-Boas, S.G. Sound Stimulation Can Affect Saccharomyces cerevisiae Growth and Production of Volatile Metabolites in Liquid Medium. Metabolites 2021, 11, 605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Loughrin, J.H.; Parekh, R.R.; Agga, G.E.; Silva, P.J.; Sistani, K.R. Microbiome Diversity of Anaerobic Digesters Is Enhanced by Microaeration and Low Frequency Sound. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 2349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Bhagat, M.S.; Mungray, A.K.; Mungray, A.A. Effect of sound waves and inclination of membrane on the performance of the osmotic microbial fuel cell. Water-Energy Nexus 2021, 4, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ku, H.N.; Lin, W.F.; Peng, H.L.; Yew, T.R. In-situ monitoring the effect of acoustic vibration in the form of music on the motility of Escherichia coli. Appl. Acoust. 2021, 172, 107620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Vinayavekhin, N.; Wattanophas, T.; Murphy, M.F.; Vangnai, A.S.; Hobbs, G. Metabolomics responses and tolerance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa under acoustic vibration stress. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0297030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Sarvaiya, N.; Kothari, V. Audible sound in form of music can influence microbial growth, metabolism and antibiotic susceptibility. J. Appl. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2017, 2, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lee, P.F.; Karthiyeyan, S.A.; Cheng, K.S.; Cheung, W.M.; Kok, B. Cell Consciousness Study with Prokaryotic Cell Metabolism Rate Measurement in Response to Acoustical Vibration. J. Conscious. Explor. Res. 2021, 12, 102–121. [Google Scholar]
  71. Robinson, J.M.; Cameron, R.; Parker, B. The effects of anthropogenic sound and artificial light exposure on microbiomes: Ecological and public health implications. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 9, 662588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kwak, D.; Combriat, T.; Wang, C.; Scholz, H.; Danielsen, A.; Jensenius, A.R. Music for Cells? A Systematic Review of Studies Investigating the Effects of Audible Sound Played Through Speaker-Based Systems on Cell Cultures. Music. Sci. 2022, 5, 20592043221080965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Miller, D.L.; Smith, N.B.; Bailey, M.R.; Czarnota, G.J.; Hynynen, K.; Makin, I.R.S.; Bioeffects Committee of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Overview of therapeutic ultrasound applications and safety considerations. J. Ultrasound Med. 2012, 31, 623–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Frinking, P.; Segers, T.; Luan, Y.; Tranquart, F. Three decades of ultrasound contrast agents: A review of the past, present and future improvements. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2020, 46, 892–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Bhargava, N.; Mor, R.S.; Kumar, K.; Sharanagat, V.S. Advances in application of ultrasound in food processing: A review. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2021, 70, 105293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Leventhall, G. What is infrasound? Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 2007, 93, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Payne, K.B.; Langbauer, W.R.; Thomas, E.M. Infrasonic calls of the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1986, 18, 297–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Burnham, R.E. Whale geography: A species-centric approach applied to migration. Progr. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 2020, 44, 419–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gillies, N.; Martín López, L.M.; den Ouden, O.F.; Assink, J.D.; Basille, M.; Clay, T.A.; Clusella-Trullas, S.; Joo, R.; Weimerskirch, H.; Zampolli, M.; et al. Albatross movement suggests sensitivity to infrasound cues at sea. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2023, 120, e2218679120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Persinger, M.A. Infrasound, human health, and adaptation: An integrative overview of recondite hazards in a complex environment. Nat. Hazards 2014, 70, 501–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kim, C.; Guo, A.; Salhotra, G.; Sprinkhuizen, S.; Shetty, K.; Kong, D.S. Sonifying data from the human microbiota: Biota beats. Comput. Music J. 2020, 44, 51–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Liu, Z.; Parida, S.; Prasad, R.; Pandey, R.; Sharma, D.; Barman, I. Vibrational spectroscopy for decoding cancer microbiota interactions: Current evidence and future perspective. Sem. Cancer Biol. 2022, 86, 743–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Czekaj, P.; Mores, W.; Davis, R.H.; Güell, C. Infrasonic pulsing for foulant removal in crossflow microfiltration. J. Membr. Sci. 2000, 180, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Martirosyan, V.; Markosyan, L.; Hovhanesyan, H.; Hovnanyan, K.; Ayrapetyan, S. The frequency-dependent effect of extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field and mechanical vibration at infrasound frequency on the growth, division and motility of Escherichia coli K-12. Environmentalist 2012, 32, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Martirosyan, V.; Ayrapetyan, S. Comparative study of time-dependent effects of 4 and 8 Hz mechanical vibration at infrasound frequency on E. coli K-12 cells proliferation. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 2015, 34, 293–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Abedi, M.H.; Yao, M.S.; Mittelstein, D.R.; Bar-Zion, A.; Swift, M.B.; Lee-Gosselin, A.; Barturen-Larrea, P.; Buss, M.T.; Shapiro, M.G. Ultrasound-controllable engineered bacteria for cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Pagnossa, J.P.; Rocchetti, G.; Ribeiro, A.C.; Piccoli, R.H.; Lucini, L. Ultrasound: Beneficial biotechnological aspects on microorganisms-mediated processes. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2020, 31, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Guimarães, J.T.; Scudino, H.; Ramos, G.L.; Oliveira, G.A.; Margalho, L.P.; Costa, L.E.; Freitas, M.Q.; Duarte, M.C.K.; Sant’Ana, A.S.; Cruz, A.G. Current applications of high-intensity ultrasound with microbial inactivation or stimulation purposes in dairy products. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2021, 42, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Yu, H.; Liu, Y.; Li, L.; Guo, Y.; Xie, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Yao, W. Ultrasound-involved emerging strategies for controlling foodborne microbial biofilms. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 96, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. da Silva, T.G.; Ribeiro, R.S.; Mencalha, A.L.; de Souza Fonseca, A. Photobiomodulation at molecular, cellular, and systemic levels. Lasers Med. Sci. 2023, 38, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Santos, F.P.; Carvalhos, C.A.; Figueiredo-Dias, M. New Insights into Photobiomodulation of the Vaginal Microbiome—A Critical Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 13507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Roelandts, R. A new light on Niels Finsen, a century after his Nobel Prize. Photodermatol. Photoimmunol. Photomed. 2005, 21, 115–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Grzybowski, A.; Pietrzak, K. From patient to discoverer—Niels Ryberg Finsen (1860–1904)—The founder of phototherapy in dermatology. Clin. Dermatol. 2012, 30, 451–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Laakso, E.L.; Ewais, T. A holistic perspective on how photobiomodulation may influence fatigue, pain, and depression in inflammatory bowel disease: Beyond molecular mechanisms. Biomedicines 2023, 11, 1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Bicknell, B.; Liebert, A.; Johnstone, D.; Kiat, H. Photobiomodulation of the microbiome: Implications for metabolic and inflammatory diseases. Lasers Med. Sci. 2019, 34, 317–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Mineroff, J.; Maghfour, J.; Ozog, D.D.; Lim, H.W.; Kohli, I.; Jagdeo, J. Photobiomodulation CME Part II: Clinical Applications in Dermatology. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2024, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Shen, Q.; Guo, H.; Yan, Y. Photobiomodulation for Neurodegenerative Diseases: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. de Lima Luna, C.A.; Guimarães, D.M.; e Silva, E.S.; do Couto, M.F.N.; Oliveira, G.L.; Alves, M.S.A.; Brazão-Silva, M.T.; de Andrade Hage, C. Photobiomodulation in the treatment of oral diseases. Res. Soc. Devel. 2023, 12, e9512338070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Dietert, R.R. The microbiome-immune-host defense barrier complex (microimmunosome) and developmental programming of noncommunicable diseases. Reprod. Toxicol. 2017, 68, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Shahi, S.; Khorvash, R.; Goli, M.; Ranjbaran, S.M.; Najarian, A.; Mohammadi Nafchi, A. Review of proposed different irradiation methods to inactivate food-processing viruses and microorganisms. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 9, 5883–5896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Masjoudi, M.; Mohseni, M.; Bolton, J.R. Sensitivity of bacteria, protozoa, viruses, and other microorganisms to ultraviolet radiation. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 2021, 126, 126021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Li, Y.Q.; Sun, R.; Zhang, C.M.; Liu, Z.X.; Chen, R.T.; Zhao, J.; Gu, H.D.; Yin, H.C. Inactivation of pathogenic microorganisms in water by electron beam excitation multi-wavelength ultraviolet irradiation: Efficiency, influence factors and mechanism. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 350, 119597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Bosman, E.S.; Albert, A.Y.; Lui, H.; Dutz, J.P.; Vallance, B.A. Skin exposure to narrow band ultraviolet (UVB) light modulates the human intestinal microbiome. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 477346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Ghaly, S.; Kaakoush, N.O.; Hart, P.H. Effects of UVR exposure on the gut microbiota of mice and humans. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2020, 19, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Dewi, D.A.R.; Perdiyana, A.; Wiliantari, N.M.; Nadhira, F.; Arkania, N.; Salsabila, C.A.; Allun, C.V.; Allatib, A.; Dewantara, K.; Wiliantari, N.; et al. Managing the Skin Microbiome as a New Bacteriotherapy for Inflammatory Atopic Dermatitis. Cureus 2023, 15, e48803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Zhang, K.; Fan, S.; Lv, A.; Ma, Y.; Fang, X.; Zhang, J. Integrated analysis of microbiota with bile acids for the phototherapy treatment of neonatal jaundice. Arch. Med. Sci. 2023, 19, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Xi, N.; Bloor, J.M.; Chu, C. Soil microbes alter seedling performance and biotic interactions under plant competition and contrasting light conditions. Ann. Bot. 2020, 126, 1089–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Bian, J.; Liebert, A.; Bicknell, B.; Chen, X.-M.; Huang, C.; Pollock, C.A. Therapeutic Potential of Photobiomodulation for Chronic Kidney Disease. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 8043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Chen, P.J.; Nakano, T.; Lai, C.Y.; Chang, K.C.; Chen, C.L.; Goto, S. Daily full spectrum light exposure prevents food allergy-like allergic diarrhea by modulating vitamin D3 and microbiota composition. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 2021, 7, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Conteville, L.C.; Vicente, A.C.P. Skin exposure to sunlight: A factor modulating the human gut microbiome composition. Gut Microbes 2020, 11, 1135–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Chu, W.; Zhai, J.; Xu, J.; Li, S.; Li, W.; Chen, Z.J.; Du, Y. Continuous light-induced PCOS-like changes in reproduction, metabolism, and gut microbiota in Sprague-Dawley rats. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 470655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Hong, F.; Pan, S.; Xu, P.; Xue, T.; Wang, J.; Guo, Y.; Jia, L.; Qiao, X.; Li, L.; Zhai, Y. Melatonin Orchestrates Lipid Homeostasis through the Hepatointestinal Circadian Clock and Microbiota during Constant Light Exposure. Cells 2020, 9, 489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Khan, I.; Pathan, S.; Li, X.A.; Leong, W.K.; Liao, W.L.; Wong, V.; Hsiao, W.W. Far infrared radiation induces changes in gut microbiota and activates GPCRs in mice. J. Adv. Res. 2020, 22, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Kim, Y.M.; Snijders, A.M.; Brislawn, C.J.; Stratton, K.G.; Zink, E.M.; Fansler, S.J.; Metz, T.O.; Mao, J.H.; Jansson, J.K. Light-stress influences the composition of the murine gut microbiome, memory function, and plasma metabolome. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2019, 6, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Li, X.M.; Li, S.; Huang, F.Y.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, Z.Y.; Chen, S.C.; Zhu, Y.G. Artificial light at night triggers negative impacts on nutrients cycling and plant health regulated by soil microbiome in urban ecosystems. Geoderma 2023, 436, 116547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Lu, Y.; Yang, J.; Dong, C.; Fu, Y.; Liu, H. Gut microbiome-mediated changes in bone metabolism upon infrared light exposure in rats. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2021, 217, 112156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Wang, M.; Cao, J.; Amakye, W.K.; Gong, C.; Li, Q.; Ren, J. Mid infrared light treatment attenuates cognitive decline and alters the gut microbiota community in APP/PS1 mouse model. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2020, 523, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Wang, W.; Hao, Z.; Wu, Z.; Cui, J.; Liu, H. Long-term artificial/natural daytime light affects mood, melatonin, corticosterone, and gut microbiota in rats. Appl. Microbiol. Biotech. 2023, 107, 2689–2705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Wei, L.; Li, J.; Russell, R.; Zhang, D. Constant light exposure alters gut microbiota and promotes the progression of steatohepatitis in high fat diet rats. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 523269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Wu, G.; Tang, W.; He, Y.; Hu, J.; Gong, S.; He, Z.; Wei, G.; Lv, L.; Jiang, Y.; Zhou, H.; et al. Light exposure influences the diurnal oscillation of gut microbiota in mice. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2018, 501, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Zhang, Y.; Li, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Wang, J.; Zhang, S.; Zhu, R.; Wang, Y.; Wu, Y.; Liao, X.; Mi, J. Reducing light exposure enhances the circadian rhythm of the biological clock through interactions with the gut microbiota. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 858, 160041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Park, J.Y.; Kim, S.M.; Kim, J.H. Efficacy of phototherapy with 308-nm excimer light for skin microbiome dysbiosis and skin barrier dysfunction in canine atopic dermatitis. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 762961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Zhao, K.; Ma, B.; Xu, Y.; Stirling, E.; Xu, J. Light exposure mediates circadian rhythms of rhizosphere microbial communities. ISME J. 2021, 15, 2655–2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Rai, S.; Rai, G.; Kumar, A. Eco-evolutionary impact of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure on microorganisms, with a special focus on our skin microbiome. Microbiol. Res. 2022, 260, 127044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Liebert, A.; Bicknell, B.; Johnstone, D.M.; Gordon, L.C.; Kiat, H.; Hamblin, M.R. “Photobiomics”: Can light, including photobiomodulation, alter the microbiome? Photobiomodul. Photomed. Laser Surg. 2019, 37, 681–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Dietert, R.R.; Dietert, J.M. Using the Internet of Microbes to Survive the Assault on the Human Microbiome. Am. J. Biomed. Sci. Res. 2023, 19, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Dietert, R.R. Time for a Change: The End of the Pharmacracy. Am. J. Biomed. Sci. Res. 2023, 20, 205–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Dietert, J.M.; Dietert, R. Ancient and Alternative Healing Tools for Microbe Management. Am. J. Biomed. Sci. Res. 2024, 21, 475–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Slijepcevic, P.; Wickramasinghe, N.C. An internet of microbes straddling the cosmos. Adv. Genet. 2020, 106, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Examples of sound frequencies, cymatics, music, and microbe alterations.
Table 1. Examples of sound frequencies, cymatics, music, and microbe alterations.
Experimental Study
or Review
[Citation]
Experimental Approach
[Not Applicable (NA)
for Reviews]
Major Experimental
Findings/
Review Conclusions
Study of the effects of chronic (30-day duration) white noise at different levels vs. background noise on the mouse gut microbiome and other health-related biomarkers
[60].
Groups of three-month-old male SAMP8 mice were exposed to different levels of white noise (88 or 98 dB) for 4 h per day for 30 days while control animals
received background
noise (40 dB) from
another chamber. A
group of 8-month-old mice
was also used as a
positive (aging) control.
Behavioral testing, tissue
analysis, and cecal
microbiota were analyzed.
(1) Noise exposure
significantly increased the
Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio.
(2) At the genus level, noise
increased
the levels of
Candidatus Jettenia,
Denitratisoma, and
SM1A02. (3) Chronic noise
impaired
both intestinal and
brain endothelial tight
junctions and elevated
biomarkers for systemic
inflammation.
(4) Hippocampal amyloid-β
was significantly elevated
in the noise-exposed groups
(vs. controls) and (5) this
parameter
could be transferred to
non-noise exposed recipient
mice via fecal microbiota
transplantation.
Experimental comparison in South Africa of exposure of wine grape plants to music vs. controls
[61].
Wine Grapes, Vitis vinifera L. (cultivar “Syrah”), were planted with one group exposed to classical music 24/7 for the entire growing season while the control was out of range of the music. Core leaf microbiomes were compared (via 16S rRNA gene analysis and ITS fragment amplicon
libraries).
Music was associated with
an altered grapevine
phyllosphere microbiota,
which exhibited (1) increased
abundance of specific
bacteria
and fungi,
and (2), with certain conditions,
distinct taxa
previously shown to exhibit
beneficial characteristics
in host resilience and/or
wine terroir (taste).
A study on the impact of a variety of different sound frequencies on the growth and intercellular macromolecular characteristics of E. coli K-12
[62].
For this in vitro study,
within an experimental
apparatus, both the sound
frequency and intensity
level were adjusted
with a waveform generator
and the amplifying circuit
in the soundwave generating unit. Sound frequency varied from 250 to 16,000 Hz and was maintained at a sound intensity level of 80 dB and a sound power level of 55 dB. The level of sound intensity varied from 0 to 100 dB. The sound power level varied from 55 to 63 dB and was maintained at 8 kHz and
80 dB.
Six-hour exposure of
E. coli K-12 to a
frequency of 8 kHz, with an intensity
level of 80 dB and a power level
of 61 dB produced
(1) significantly
increased biomass and
intracellular
macromolecular synthesis
and (2) increased length of the
E. coli K-12 cells.
Experimental study comparing the effects of music vs. white noise on mice
[63].
Six-week-old male SPF
C57BL/6J mice received a one week adaptation period with three groups used
over a 5-week acoustic trial.
Groups were as follows: mice with
Mozart for two 1.5 h intervals, mice with white noise at the same dB and time intervals, and controls with no extra sound. Extensive growth, behavioral, physiological, and microbiological data were collected.
The music group
was significantly
elevated in the Firmicutes/
Bacteroidetes (F/B) ratio
while the white
noise group had a
significantly reduced FB ratio.
White noise increased oxidative stress (with reduced antioxidant
levels) and decreased
immune function
(based on cytokine biomarkers).
Study of the effects of
different sound
frequencies on brewer’s
yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) growth and volatile metabolite production
[64].
Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain CLIB382 isolated from a 1950 Irish brewery was used as the microbe. Two sound frequencies were examined (100 Hz and 10 kHZ) plus silence as
a control. The intensity was 90 dB with a background of 41 dB. The culture was sampled for growth and metabolites 16 h after inoculation and then every 4 h until completion (approximately 40 h). Twenty-four separate aroma-associated metabolites were quantitated during the fermentation.
Major changes in growth and
aromatic metabolites were found
with the different sound
treatments. The researchers concluded that sound manipulates the fermentation process such
that aroma and flavors
(e.g., citrus vs. sweet fruit) of
beer and other
consumer products could
be shifted with
simple sound treatments.
The study examined the
effects of 1000 Hz frequency sound with and
without microaeration on poultry litter digestion
[65].
The effects of sound (1000 Hz) with and without microaeration on digestion of poultry litter to produce biogas was examined for both efficiency and microbe alteration. Baseline measurements of digestate were taken at six weeks of operation. Beginning at seven weeks of digestion, sound and/or microaeration was introduced daily with further sampling of biogas and microbes conducted at 23 weeks and 42 weeks of operation.Sound and
microaeration significantly
increased microbial
diversity beyond controls, including an
increase in the
Firmicutes/
Bacteroidetes ratio.
Study examining the
effects of different sound
frequencies on a variety
of microbial functions
within osmotic microbial fuel cells
[66].
Bacteria were stimulated
for 5–6 h per day with a sound wave having an
intensity of 60–80 dB
and a frequency range
from 20 to 1000 Hz.
Sound stimulation (1)
increased organic
matter degradation and
power generation from
the bacteria-based
fuel cell and (2)
decreased the osmotic fuel
cell start-up time.
Different sound frequencies were tested on growth and secondary metabolite function among halogenic unicellular green microalgae Dunaliella salina. The article also provides review information of prior studies across ultrasound, audible sound, and infrasound
[57].
Researchers investigated
the effects of 100, 200,
500, and 1000 Hz (90 dB
intensity)
sound
on protein
biomass and cell
division, using both
a nitrite-optimized and
deficient media.
Beta-carotene was
quantitated as an
important secondary
metabolite. Sound was continuous for the last 15 days of an 18-day culture. For control cultures, the sound was below 40 dB.
Most sound frequencies,
increased growth with
200 Hz, facilitating maximum
growth while
minimizing stress
damage, and with
1000 Hz decreasing
growth.
Study of in situ effects of acoustic music on the motility and swimming
ability of Escherichia coli
[67].
E. coli MG1655 was subjected to synthesized music (via musecore) of the Flight of the Bumblebee. Both indirect (on a sold surface) and direct (in a liquid solution) movement was quantitated. Three different music conditions were
evaluated:
Highfast (329.68–4186 Hz, 250 Beats per minute, BPM), Midfast (55–1760 Hz, 250 BPM), Midslow (55–1760 Hz, 25 BPM) along with a control group.
Motility, average swimming
speed, and absolute average
velocity significantly
increased in the
Highfast and Midfast
groups.
The Midslow group had
extensive variability.
A study of the effects of acoustic sound vibrations on Pseudomonas aeruginosa
[68].
The study used a 100 Hz
vibration system to
examine vibrational stress
and chemicals on
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
strain PAO1 tolerance
after a 48 h culture.
Exposure produced increases
in the levels of fatty acids and
their derivatives,
N-acylethanolamines, and
quinolones with decreased
levels of rhamnolipids.
Gene expression was altered
with increased expression
of fabY, fade,
and pqsA genes and
a downregulation
of the rhlA gene.
A study on the effects of
Indian classical music on growth, metabolism, and antibiotic susceptibility in microbial cultures
[69].
Eight different prokaryotic and eukaryotic microbes were tested using music ranging in frequency from 41 to 645 Hz with a decibel range of 95–110 dB.For the eight organisms
examined (Xanthomonas
campestris, Chromobacterium
violaceum, Serratia marcescens,
Staphylococcus aureus,
Streptococcus
pyogenes, Streptococcus mutans,
Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and Candida
albicans), music enhanced
growth and antibiotic
susceptibility
for all organisms
except S. marcescens.
Study of cell consciousness metabolism in response to different acoustic vibrations
among Escherichia coli K-12
[70].
The protocol examined the effects of six different time durations (range of 5–30 min.) Two single frequency sounds (500 Hz and 1000 Hz) and Pali chanting natural sounds by monks (range of 200–900 Hz) were used. Culture absorbance rate was used for evaluation of growth/metabolism at different timepoints.Overall, continuous
exposure to the
the Pali chant
increased growth for
the 5–25 min
evaluation times.
Review article discussing the significance of bio-acoustic communication among microbes and across kingdom boundaries. It also considers electromagnetic induction of sound
[16].
NAThis review is particularly
significant in its discussion of
sound among microbes as an information communication signal.
The authors used the term
”infosome” to discuss initiators
of intermicrobe sound
communications
and the significance of sound
communication during stress in
the environment. Importantly, the
review also
considers sound-based
communications relative
to holobionts.
Review article discussing sound-based communication among bacteria
[15].
NAThis review provides a
significant consideration of wired
and wireless communication
among bacteria including
examples that suggest that bacteria can enable neighbors to grow
in non-permissive conditions by
communicating via sound.
Review article covering the effects of anthropomorphic sound and artificial light on microbes. The emphasis is placed on public health considerations
[71].
NAAmong 12 papers found on
bacteria and
anthropomorphic
sound,
8 papers were
discussed in detail as per
protocols
and results.
Additional studies were
reviewed on algae,
fungi, and zooplankton.
Systematic review of music and sound influencing specific cell cultures
[72].
NAThis is a systematic review of
sound and microbial cell culture.
An emphasis is placed on
examining mechanobiological
stimuli and their effects.
Vibrations are considered
as part of the effect of sound
on microbes. Vibrations are
given further consideration
in a later section of
our present
narrative review.
Review of acoustical restoration and the potential of using soundscapes to restore microbe-connected, holobiont ecological communities
[56].
NAThis review forges important new ground in examining the use of
“acoustical lures” to
attract microbes as well as
multiple higher organisms to
acoustically restore
ecologically devastated areas.
Scalable acoustic restoration is
compared vs. seven other
restoration approaches.
Table 2. Examples of ultra- and infrasound frequencies and microbe alterations.
Table 2. Examples of ultra- and infrasound frequencies and microbe alterations.
Experimental Study
or Review
[Citation(s)]
Experimental Approach
[Not Applicable (NA)
for Reviews]
Major Experimental
Findings/
Review Conclusions
Infrasonic pulsing for
foulant removal
[83].
The study investigated the use of pulsed infrasound to in situ microbially clean filtration membranes. Saccharomyces cerevisiae (yeast) was used for membrane cake formation. Infrasound-induced membrane vibration is thought to be part of the multistep cleaning process. Talc vs. yeast was use in the evaluations. While optimal frequency and
duration of pulsing
differed between the
two test systems,
infrasound pulsing produced
a four-fold improvement
in the net
flux for the experimental
talc system. For the yeast
system, it resulted in up
to three-fold improvement.
Study of infrasound vibrations on Escherichia coli K-12 cell proliferation
[84,85].
Radioactive labelling [3
H]-thymidine-based cell
proliferation assay was used to examine the effects of several different infrasound frequencies (2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 Hz frequency, at 30 dB intensity) with varying exposure durations for wild-type E. coli K-12 cells.
These two research publications
from the same group showed
that infrasound
could have
stimulatory
or inhibitory effects on
E. coli cell growth
depending upon the
exposure duration.
Study of focused ultrasound
as a key tool to direct engineered bacteria for cancer immunotherapy
[86].
Engineered
Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 (an approved probiotic bacteria that can colonize certain tumors) was equipped with a trial-selected thermal-sensitive repressor element originally derived from other microbes and designed to thermally switch control of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the tumor environment. Focused ultrasound was used to thermally trigger bacterial gene expression. An in vivo trial was performed against tumors transplanted into
female BALB/cJ mice aged 8–12 weeks old.
Following successful
in vitro trials of the
engineered bacterium,
an in vivo trial using tumor-
transplanted mice and
an ultrasound trigger produced
a significant reduction in
tumor volume.
Review on use of ultrasound in microbial-mediated processes such as in fermented foods
[87].
NAThis review
provides a good basis for
an understanding of the importance
of ultrasound in
stimulating microbial growth
and food fermentation when
low intensities (vs. microbe
damaging higher intensities)
are utilized. Ultrasound-induced
alterations of metabolic
processes are also considered.
The review focuses on the use of ultrasound in dairy products
[88].
NAThe review provides
useful
contrasts of differing
intensity/wave amplitude
effects on microbial
populations among dairy
products. It presents a
model with high-intensity
implosion of microbubbles
leading to microbial damage.
Review of sound and ultrasound and their effects on biofilm formation and metabolism among food-related microorganisms
[89].
NAThe review covers the
bactericidal and antibiofilm
effects of ultrasound and also
includes sections dealing
with growth-promoting
sound frequencies for
specific microbes. Additionally,
it considers the
enhanced protection from
food-related microbes when ultrasound is combined with other
factors (e.g., chelating agents,
enzymes, and ozone).
Table 3. Examples of light treatment and photobiomodulation (PBM) of microbiota.
Table 3. Examples of light treatment and photobiomodulation (PBM) of microbiota.
Experimental Study
or Reviews
[Citation]
Experimental Approach
[Not Applicable (NA)
for Reviews]
Major Experimental
Findings/
Review Conclusions
A review of PBM of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), inflammation, and pain stresses two main paths through which PBM influences the gut microbiome
[94].
NAIBD is one of the microbial dysbiosis-mediated diseases where PBM shows considerable promise.
In a review of PBM and chronic kidney disease, the pathways through which PBM facilitates correction of mitochondrial dysfunction as well as gut microbiome dysbiosis are considered main pathways to health improvement [108].Gut microbiome status is a key target in Chronic Kidney Disease.This review is important in establishing the significance of PBM on even end-stage diseases with the gut microbiome being an important route.
In a mouse model,
Balb/c mice at 10.5 weeks
of age were treated
with sham, single, and
multiple (3× per week)
laser treatments using
lasers at 660 nm (red) or 808 nm (infrared)
[95].
Abdominal shaved skin was the target and fecal microbiota analysis was compared on fecal pellets collected at 0, 7, and 14 days of treatment. 16S rRNA gene analysis
was used.
By day 14 in
the trial, infrared
(but not red)-light
treatment significantly
increased a genus of
bacteria associated with a healthy
microbiome:
Allobaculum
The effects of narrow-band ultraviolet light skin exposure (3× exposures in one week) on intestinal microbiota were examined in
healthy human females
who took vitamin D supplementation the entire winter vs. those who did not have prior-winter vitamin D supplementation
[103].
Pre- and post-treatment blood and fecal samples
(two samples of each from each participant) were
obtained for vitamin D
and gut
microbiota analysis.
Exposure of low vitamin D level participants to narrow-band UVB light produced specific alterations in the gut microbiome. For this group, enrichment was found in Lachnospiracheae, Rikenellaceae, Desulfobacteraceae, Clostridiales vadin BB60 group, Clostridia Family XIII, Coriobacteriaceae, Marinifilaceae, and Ruminococcus.
In a mouse model, the
effects of daily full-spectrum phototherapy were examined in 4-week-old female Balb/c mice
(nine hours per day of
Full-spectrum therapy for nine weeks)
[109].
An ovalbumin (OVA)-induced food allergy
model was used.
Allergic diarrhea,
specific immunoglobulins
to OVA, Vitamin D3 analysis, and fecal microbiota analysis (16S ribosomal RNA gene amplicon) were used. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) was also used from OVA food-allergic mice to naïve recipients to establish the role of the dysbiotic gut microbiota in the food allergy phenotype. For phototherapy,
mice received daily
exposure to full-spectrum light for 12 h/day
throughout the entire
experiment (9 weeks).
Dysbiotic microbiota for food-allergic mice were capable of transferring the
OVA allergic phenotype.
Phototherapy
significantly reduced allergic diarrhea, improved vitamin D3 levels,
reduced OVA-specific
IgE and IgG1 antibody
levels, balanced
specific cytokines,
and significantly elevated the gut microbiome Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio.
Researchers presented evidence in a commentary suggesting that both natural skin exposure to sunlight and artificial ultraviolet B (UVB) light have similar effects on the gut microbiome.
[110].
The commentary
compared data from
two different studies.
Both artificial narrow-band UVB exposure and natural sun exposure
of skin produced increases
in gut microbiome
diversity involving the
phyla Proteobacteria. The authors stressed the importance of natural sunlight in gut microbiome maintenance of diversity (with appropriate phototherapy as an option when optimal sunlight was not available).
In a rat model, the effects of continuous light (24 h) vs. a 12 h light, 12 h dark cycle were compared for changes in microbial communities and physiology as well as
for potential health risks
[111].
Female Sprague Dawley rats (6 weeks old) were exposed to continuous light or a 12 h light/12 h dark cycle
for four weeks (after a one-week acclimation).
Hormone profiles, histology,
gene expression, and
fecal microbiota
analysis (using a 16S rRNA gene sequencing protocol) were obtained.
Exposure to constant light (and circadian disruption) was associated with a
polycystic ovary syndrome
phenotype. This exposure resulted in enriched Parasutterella with reduced abundance of Corynebacterium, genus Odoribacter, and
Acinetobacter.
In a mouse model, ten-week-old male C57BL/6J mice were exposed to continuous light vs. a 12 h light, 12 h dark cycle to determine the role of melatonin in regulating light-induced microbial dysbiosis
[112].
Constant light was found to produce both an obesity
phenotype and gut
microbiome dysbiosis
(elevated Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio plus shifts in certain genera. The effect of melatonin (50 mg/kg body weight in water) as a protective factor was examined.
Melatonin treatment significantly corrected both the aberrant lipid metabolism and the constant light shifts in gut microbiome distribution.
In a mouse model, the effects of far-infrared (FIR) light were examined on gut microbiota
[113].
C57BL/6J mice were
exposed for 2 min intervals 3× or 5× during a day to examine the short- and long-term effects on the
gut microbiome.
Microbiome analysis
(ERIC-PCR and 16S RNA amplicon sequencing) was performed. Exposure involved electromagnetic waves of 4–20 mm with 85.61% average
FIR emissivity and a photon energy level of 12.4 MeV–1.7 eV applied to the mouse abdomen. A two-hour interval between FIR exposures was used.
FIR treatment resulted
in three major effects: (1) a
reduction in the prevalence of
phylum
Deferribacteres
(composed of several
pathogens),
(2) a significant increase
in the prevalence of beneficial genera (e.g., Alistipes, Barnesiella, and Prevotella), and (3) upregulation of key genes connected to short-chain fatty acid regulation and gut homeostasis.
In a mouse model, light and dark stress (24 h dark vs. 12 h light, 12 h dark, vs. 24 h continuous light) were examined for effects on the gut microbiome and memory function and the plasma metabolome
[114].
In C57BL/6J male mice,
the three lighting
conditions were used
over a 12-week period
with microbiome
analysis at baseline
and at
4 weeks intervals and
behavioral and plasma
metabolic analysis after
12 weeks.
Exposure to continuous light in mice resulted in a significant short-term reduction in memory potential. Gut microbiome increases in Bacteroidales and Rikenellaceae were seen with exposure to continuous darkness, and
Bacteroidales S24-7 was elevated with exposure to continuous light.
The effects of artificial light at night (ALAN) on the soil
microbiome of urban
areas were examined
[115].
Twenty-nine different soil sampling sites across 10
urban turf parks were
used in the vicinity of
Ningbo city in
China. Artificial light
levels were obtained via
satellite remote sensing. DNA extraction, Illumina
sequencing, and high-throughput PCR were all
utilized in the analysis of
soil samples.
The 29 sampling sites varied
significantly in ALAN
intensity.
ALAN affected
the structures of fungal,
bacterial, and protist
communities as well as functional profiles and nutrient cycling. ALAN was beneficial for some fungal
phytopathogens.
In a study using rats, the effects of infrared light on gut microbiota changes and bone loss were evaluated
[116].
Because artificial
LED white light does
not include
infrared light, the researchers investigated the effects of supplementing the LED light with infrared (IR) on both the gut microbiome and on bone-related metabolism. Eight-week-old female Sprague Dawley rats were used with half ovariectomized to simulate a bone loss model. IR supplementation occurred for 30 min each day for the three months of the project.
IR supplementation
(1) significantly increased
the abundance of
Clostridiaceae and
Erysipelotrichaceae
bacteria, (2) reduced the abundance of
Saccharibacteria, and (3) increased bone metabolism which correlated with gut microbiome changes.
In a mouse study, the effects of mid-infrared light on gut microbiota and cognitive decline were examined
[117].
Six-moth-old APP/PS1 transgenic mice (compared against controls) were used as a model of
Alzheimer’s Disease and
cognitive decline to
examine the effects of mid-infrared light (MIR) on gut microbiota and learning, memory, and amyloid-β (Aβ) plaque load. Behavioral tests, histopathology, and fecal samples subjected to 16S rRNA gene sequencing and analysis were employed. Beginning at 7.5 months of age after baseline sampling, MIR was administered for one hour each day for 1.5 months before final analyses.
MIR treatment produced (1) increased abundance of Bacteroidetes
and Verrucomicrobia, with
(2) decreased Fimicutes, and
(3) increased bacterial diversity
with genus-level effects.
MIR treatment also
attenuated Aβ plaques
and improved memory
and learning abilities.
In a study using rats, the effects of light duration as well as natural vs. artificial light on gut microbiota were examined
[118].
Male Sprague Dawley
rats were exposed to a
modified
16/8 h light/dark cycle
for 8 weeks. Different groups had different types of light during the 16 h period (artificial light group (AL), natural light group (NL), and mixed light group (MX)). The 16 h period was divided into 13 h of the test lighting followed by 3 h artificial nightlight. Corticosterone and melatonin (the latter used as an indicator of circadian
rhythm), gut microbiota composition, weight and food efficiency, and depression-like behavior were evaluated.
For the microbiome comparisons, the genus Lactobacillus was more abundant in the MX group compared to the other two groups. For NL, the genus Lachnospiraceae_NK4A136_group
was more abundant
in the MX group.
NL and MX groups
displayed a lower
anxiety level and
maintained a higher
concentration of
melatonin than
the AL group.
In rats, the effects of constant light on both gut microbiota and risk of diet-induced progression of steatohepatitis were examined
[119].
To examine the effects of light and diet on the microbiome, four groups of male
Sprague Dawley
rats were evaluated:
normal light/dark with standard diet (NL-ND),
constant light with
standard diet (CL-ND),
normal light with a high-fat diet (NL-HFD), and
constant light with a
high-fat diet (CL-HFD). Metabolic parameters were also evaluated. The experimental period was 16 weeks.
Constant light produced
glucose abnormalities and dyslipidemia.
The CL-HFD group had
significant biomarkers for
metabolic syndrome (e.g.,
elevated inflammation and liver
steatohepatitis). Constant light
resulted in decreased
Butyricicoccus,
Clostridium, and
Turicibacter levels, decreased
butyrate levels, and
increased indications of
a compromised
gut barrier.
In mice, light oscillation effects on gut microbiota were examined
[120].
Gut microbiota
diurnal composition
and functional
fluctuations were
examined using
5-week-old Balb/c
male mice and a two-week treatment of light–dark
(L-D) vs. dark–dark
(D-D) exposures. 16S amplicon sequencing and PCR amplification on cecal samples was used for microbiota analysis.
A rhythmic oscillation of microbiota was noted in the L-D group but not the D-D group with Bacteroidia
showing a
diurnal fluctuation in the
L-D group. For functionality, bacteria motility proteins exhibited day/night changes, but the magnitude of the changes was significantly reduced in the D-D group. The abundance of Clostridia was
significantly increased in
the D-D small intestine.
In laying chickens,
the effects of
reduced light
exposure on
gut microbiota
were examined
[121].
The study examined the
role of intermittent
photoperiod-induced
regulation in
the interaction between the host circadian clock and
the cecal microbial
community. Roman laying hens of 20 weeks of age were distributed in three groups: a normal 16 h light/8 h dark group (control), a group where the 16 h light phase had 4
intermittent photoperiod
cycles (Low-I), and a
group that had 16
intermittent
photoperiod cycles
within the 16 h light
period (High-I). Cecal sample DNA extraction and
16S rRNA amplicon
sequencing analysis
were used in the
microbiota analysis.
Cecal metabolic and
serum biomarker
analyses were also conducted.
Significant findings were as follows: (1)
The intermittent
photoperiod affected
the composition and
structure of the
gut microbes, (2) correlations were found between the circadian
rhythms of gut microbes and the
central and peripheral
biological clock, (3) melatonin was the route
through which the central
biological clock affected the
circadian rhythms of gut microbes, and (4) microbial metabolites
(such as short-chain fatty acids)
were the route through which
gut microbes provided feedback to
enhance clock gene expression
in the hypothalamus,
liver, and cecal wall.
Light therapy for canine atopic dermatitis and skin microbiome dysbiosis was examined
[122].
The effects of topical 308-nm excimer light were examined relative to canine atopic dermatitis (CAD), the skin microbiome, and skin-barrier health. Treatments were given every week for two months for CASD and nonatopic dogs. A variety of parameters were quantitated.Light therapy significantly (1)
reduced atopic dermatitis, (2)
altered composition of the skin
microbiome
(increased Actinobacteria and
Cyanobacteria phyla), (3) increased
microbial diversity, and
(4) decreased atopic-associated
Staphylococcus pseudintermedius.
Skin barrier function improved
with no adverse effects seen.
The interaction between light exposure and the circadian rhythm of the rhizosphere was examined
[123].
The effects of light and
the circadian clock on the
rhizosphere
of rice (Oryza sativa L.)
were evaluated
by growing rice for
60 days
and then subjecting
it to 72 h of either
light–dark (L-D) or
dark–dark
(D-D) cycles.
Soil samples were
subjected to RNA
extraction and 16S cDNA amplicon
sequencing and real-time
quantitative PCR.
Microbial activity was significantly higher during daytime light than darkness. No circadian cycling was noted in the D-D samples and these samples had significantly lower activity. In the rhizosphere,
the proportion of
the taxa with
circadian rhythms
differed significantly
between the L-D and
D-D treatment groups.
These findings shed light
on the regulation
of circadian rhythms
within the
rice rhizosphere.
Review of UV radiation (UVR) effects on skin and skin microbiome in humans
[124].
NAThis review stresses the importance of UVR for a healthy skin microbiome as well as the protectant metabolite produced by the skin microbes. It also provides useful information on the skin–gut microbiome axis.
A critical review details
the recent evidence for
photobiomodulation of the
vaginal microbiome
including dose, specific
spectra of
light, and microbiome-driven health effects
[91].
NAThe review extends the utility of photobiomodulation beyond the
gut microbiome to the vagina,
the vaginal microbiome, and
vaginal immune defense against pathogens.
Review of phototherapy effects relative to both the human microbiome
and disease
[125].
NAThe review considers
the effects of red light and near-infrared light on both rodents and
humans with an emphasis on both the gut microbiome and risk of
disease. The authors conclude the following: (1)
that this is a promising avenue
for disease prevention and treatment and (2) that the application has
implications relative to circadian
cycle maintenance.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dietert, R.R.; Dietert, J.M. Examining Sound, Light, and Vibrations as Tools to Manage Microbes and Support Holobionts, Ecosystems, and Technologies. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 905. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12050905

AMA Style

Dietert RR, Dietert JM. Examining Sound, Light, and Vibrations as Tools to Manage Microbes and Support Holobionts, Ecosystems, and Technologies. Microorganisms. 2024; 12(5):905. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12050905

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dietert, Rodney R., and Janice M. Dietert. 2024. "Examining Sound, Light, and Vibrations as Tools to Manage Microbes and Support Holobionts, Ecosystems, and Technologies" Microorganisms 12, no. 5: 905. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12050905

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop