Next Article in Journal
Gene Dysregulation in the Adult Rat Paraventricular Nucleus and Amygdala by Prenatal Exposure to Dexamethasone
Next Article in Special Issue
Optoacoustic Imaging Offers New Insights into In Vivo Human Skin Vascular Physiology
Previous Article in Journal
Pathogenesis of Distal Symmetrical Polyneuropathy in Diabetes
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Trinity of Skin: Skin Homeostasis as a Neuro–Endocrine–Immune Organ
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Life
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/life12071075
life-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impact of Kefir on Epidermal Water Homeostasis in Healthy Human Skin

by
Emília Alves
1,2,
João Gregório
1,
Patrícia Rijo
1,3,
Catarina Rosado
1 and
Luís Monteiro Rodrigues
1,*
1
CBIOS—Universidade Lusófona’s Research Center for Biosciences and Health Technologies, Campo Grande 376, 1749-024 Lisboa, Portugal
2
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Alcalá, Carretera Madrid-Barcelona, Km 33.100, 28805 Alcalá de Henares, Spain
3
Instituto de Investigação do Medicamento (iMed.ULisboa), Faculdade de Farmácia, Universidade de Lisboa, 1649-003 Lisboa, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Life 2022, 12(7), 1075; https://doi.org/10.3390/life12071075
Submission received: 6 June 2022 / Revised: 8 July 2022 / Accepted: 14 July 2022 / Published: 19 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Skin Homeostasis: Mechanisms, Communication Routes, and Imbalances)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Kefir, a symbiotic consortium of diverse bacteria and yeasts, is one of the most popular probiotic foods on the market. Its consumption has been referred to as beneficial in human skin health, namely in the reinforcement of skin’s barrier function. This benefit likely results from the productive activity of lactic acid bacteria during kefir fermentation. Lactic acid is naturally present in the skin, and actively contributes to epidermal water dynamics and “barrier.” Few studies have been conducted regarding the impact of probiotic consumption in human epidermal water homeostasis. Therefore, this study was designed to explore the impact of the regular consumption of kefir on the skin water dynamics in a group of participants with healthy skin. Participants (n = 27) were healthy female volunteers from whom twelve consumed 100 mL of kefir every day for eight weeks as part of their diet. The remaining (untreated) participants served as the control group. Epidermal water balance was assessed by measuring transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and stratum corneum (SC) hydration on three different occasions—at baseline (T0), after four weeks (T4) and after eight weeks (T8) of interventive kefir consumption. Our study revealed a significant reduction in TEWL (p = 0.043) in the kefir group after eight weeks of regular consumption. In the same period, no differences were found for TEWL in the control group (p = 0.997). Regarding hydration, skin dryness was progressive in the control group, with a significant reduction in SC hydration (p = 0.002) at T8 in comparison to T0. In the kefir group, SC hydration was preserved between T0 and T8 (p = 0.997), which we believe to be related to epidermal “barrier” reinforcement. Our study seems to confirm that the regular consumption of kefir does improve cutaneous water balance even in healthy skin.

1. Introduction

The complex structure of human skin ensures a protective “barrier” against the penetration of small molecules while preventing the loss of water and electrolytes [1]. It is therefore critical for skin water homeostasis [2,3]. Permeability “barrier” dysfunction, characterized by an increase in transepidermal water loss (TEWL) [1], is typically present in premature infants, but also occurs in later life in many other dermatological conditions involving dry skin [1,2,3]. Kefir, a dietary probiotic currently consumed in many parts of the world as a food supplement [4,5,6], has been referred as potentially beneficial for skin health and in particular to reinforce or restore the skin’s barrier function [7,8,9,10].
Kefir is produced by fermenting milk with kefir grains composed of a symbiotic association of lactic acid bacteria (LAB), acetic acid bacteria and yeast [11,12]. Lactic acid is the principal metabolite of kefir fermentation and is a major component of the surface of human skin, critical for epidermal water balance [13]. Other bioactive compounds produced during kefir fermentation by LAB are hyaluronic acid and sphingomyelinase, both of which seem to be produced in concentrations sufficient to affect the epidermal barrier homeostasis [14]. A clear science-based analysis or demonstration of these properties is still lacking. Most of the studies involving kefir and skin have been developed in vitro and in animal models, focused on potentially beneficial wound healing, anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial activities [15,16,17,18]. However, as we will discuss ahead, a link between the regular consumption of kefir and skin water homeostasis has been suggested, bringing to discussion a new potential interest in this probiotic to prevent xerosis. Our group has been particularly interested in studying the impact of kefir as a food supplement in human skin health [19,20]. Thus, the present study was designed to explore the impact of the regular consumption of kefir on cutaneous water homeostasis in a group of healthy participants, following a case–control design.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Intervention

A quasi-experimental study, with a non-equivalent group design, was conducted according to the principles of the Helsinki Declaration and respective amendments [21]. The study protocol was previously approved by the institutional ethics committee (EC.ECTS-P01.18, June 2018). Participants (n = 27) were female, all healthy adults with no history of skin disease or under any kind of regular medication or supplement. By choosing only to include female participants in this preliminary study, we avoided confounding effects related to sex. Participants were recruited by convenience sampling at the university campus following the general inclusion criteria of being aged between 18 and 64 years old. General non-inclusion criteria are listed in Table 1.
After inclusion, physical and socio-demographic data were collected for participant characterization (Table 2). The equivalency of the dietary intake in each participant was confirmed through a three-day dietary record (two weekdays and one weekend day) (available at [19]). Planned experimental procedures were explained and detailed instructions were provided to all individuals. Participants were not restricted from consuming other dairy products, except fermented ones. Important recommendations included keeping their regular eating habits, avoiding over-exercise, not consuming dietary supplements or (other) fermented foods, refraining from using any medications and maintaining their regular skin care and hygiene habits. Participants were instructed not to apply any cosmetic products in the test areas 48 h prior to measurements.
Each participant was allowed to choose either the experimental group, the Kefir Group, or the Control group. In any case, participants were restricted from consuming other fermented foods. The Kefir group included 12 females, who received a 100 mL portion of kefir for consumption daily for eight consecutive weeks. The control group (n = 15) was instructed to not consume any probiotic during the same period.
The general characterization of these participants is summarized in Table 2.

2.2. Kefir

The kefir was produced by our team, in our lab, by fermentation of a commercial ultra-high-temperature pasteurized (UHT) semi-skimmed (1.6% fat) cow milk of Portuguese provenance (Nova Açores®, S. Miguel, Portugal), with CIDCA AGK1 kefir grains (from Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo en Criotecnología de Alimentos CIDCA, Universidad de La Plata, Argentina) using a grain inoculum of 10% (w/v), for 24 h, at rest, without shaking, in an open container, at a temperature of 20 ± 1 °C. Activation of the grains, fermentation conditions, and nutritional and microbiological characteristics of kefir are described elsewhere [21]. All participants from the experimental group received a 100 mL portion of kefir every day during the study period.

2.3. Biometrics and Experimental Design

Epidermal water balance was assessed by non-invasive methods, which included the quantification of TEWL and stratum corneum (SC) hydration [22]. TEWL is regarded as a measure of the rate of water lost through the skin, reflecting the epidermal “barrier” against desiccation [1,22,23]. TEWL was measured by a Tewameter® TM300 (Courage + Khazaka Electronic GmbH, Köln, Germany) in accordance with published and recently reviewed guidelines [24] and measurements were expressed as g/m2/h. The SC water content can also be assessed by other electrometric methods [22,24]. Epidermal hydration was measured by a Corneometer® CM825 (Courage + Khazaka Electronic GmbH, Köln, Germany), a technology based on the detection of skin “capacitance” expressed in arbitrary units (AU) [25]. This study was conducted in Lisbon, Portugal from October to December, which corresponds to the autumn cooling season before winter.
The ventral aspect of the forearm was used for study measurements. Both forearms were marked and referenced for measurements—10 cm below the inner crease of the elbow, and sites randomly chosen [26,27,28]. Measurements were made at baseline (T0), after four (T4) and after eight weeks (T8) of interventive kefir consumption. The same researcher, using identical standards, performed all measurements under controlled temperature (21 ± 1 °C) and humidity conditions (relative humidity, 50 ± 10%) after a period of acclimatization of 20 min.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Results were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD), and as relative frequencies. Normality of data distribution was assessed by the Shapiro–Wilk test. According to the results of the Shapiro–Wilk test, parametric or non-parametric tests were chosen to test different hypotheses. The Chi-Square test was used to test associations between categorical variables. For continuous variables here reported (TEWL and SC hydration), differences within individuals were identified by repeated-measures ANOVA with the Scheffe test for post hoc correction. All analyses were performed using the SPSS statistical package version 25 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and Jamovi version 2.2 (Sydney, Australia) with a significance level of 0.05.

3. Results

As shown in Table 3, no differences were observed at baseline between individuals included in both groups. TEWL and SC hydration values measured at T0, T4 and at T8, in both kefir and control groups, are summarized in Table 3.
No statistically significant differences in TEWL and SC hydration could be found between kefir and control groups during the experimental procedure. This was expected, as both variables are subject to change due to atmospheric conditions, and reflect participants’ adaptations over time. However, assessing the individual trend of these indicators during the study period, a reduction in TEWL was noticed in the kefir group (Figure 1). This reduction was significant (p = 0.043) after eight weeks of intervention (Table 4). By contrast, no significant differences were found for TEWL for the control group in the same period. A tendency toward increased hydration was observed in the kefir group, although the change was not significant (Figure 2). However, SC hydration was markedly reduced in the control group over the same period, significantly different in T8 (p = 0.002) compared to T0 (Table 4 and Figure 2).

4. Discussion

The present study was designed to look deeper into the alleged impact of kefir regular consumption in cutaneous water balance in healthy individuals. Thus, exploring this new potential property to prevent skin dryness and related xerotic conditions, very common from birth to old age. This study was, therefore, assessed in a healthy population.
Our analysis identified a significant reduction in TEWL after the inclusion of kefir in the regular diet of the intervention group for eight weeks (Table 3 and Table 4, Figure 1) [27]. No other relationships with age or phototype could be found. No differences in TEWL could be identified in the same conditions for the control group consuming no kefir when compared to T0. The oral consumption of probiotics has been referred to be capable of adding important metabolites impacting microbiota [7,10,29,30,31] with potentially beneficial skin effects [14,32,33]. It is the case of lactic and hyaluronic acids resulting from kefir’s fermentation processes [14,34,35,36,37,38] which are also main components of human epidermis, directly involved in the “barrier” preservation [14]. Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain these effects, including improvements of cell adhesion [39], mucin production [39], modulation of the immune system [40], enzymatic activity [41], production of short chain fatty acids and production of organic acids [9,42]. Certainly, lactic acid plays a major role since, as part of the natural moisturizing factor (NMF), it contributes to moisture retention in the skin and also has the ability to enhance the production of ceramides, thus improving the stratum corneum barrier function [14,23].
These outcomes are aligned with the work of Saito et al. who also tested the effects of ingestion of a probiotic strain on the skin of healthy women. Saito et al. only found a decrease in TEWL in the arm, not detecting changes in skin hydration [43] likely related with an eventual restriction of unfavorable intestinal bacterial population. A significant decrease in TEWL was also observed after eight weeks of probiotic intervention with a single strain of Lactobacillus species [44]. Another similar study using one Lactobacillus species during 12 weeks revealed a significant decrease in TEWL and an increase in SC hydration [45,46]. Beneficial effects on epidermal hydration were also reported elsewhere [47,48]. In our experimental conditions, we could not identify these direct effects in epidermal water hydration. However, as shown in Table 3 and Figure 2, during this experimental period, skin dryness was progressive within the control group such that at T8 a significant reduction in SC hydration was detected when compared with T0. This effect is consistent with the climate conditions registered in this time of the year with lower temperatures and reduced precipitation. By opposition SC hydration differences between T0 and T8 could both be found in the kefir group, likely related with the epidermal “barrier” reinforcement (Table 3, Figure 1).
Under these conditions, a link between the regular consumption of kefir in the diet and an improvement of the epidermal water homeostasis seems to exist as previously suggested [10,32,49]. Nevertheless, the exploratory nature of our study involves some limitations (a) the lack of placebo control, due to the difficulty of using a dairy product without probiotic properties, but excluding milk due to its known effects on the skin [50]; (b) this study was not blinded, since no masking of the product was made, which may represent a bias source; (c) the self-assignment to experimental groups which introduces evitable bias; (d) although developed in humans, all measurements were taken from one single anatomical site. Considering the complexity and diversity of the human epidermal “barrier” in different anatomical sites, a wider mapping of these effects will be beneficial, and potentially complemented with other approaches [51]. In the near future, this line of research must consider studies of longer duration depending on the particular nature of the study and population to be studied.

5. Conclusions

Under the present experimental conditions, the regular consumption of kefir seems to improve the epidermal “barrier” and contribute to cutaneous water homeostasis even in the absence of disease. These observations reinforce interest in the use of kefir in cutaneous health.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.M.R., C.R. and P.R.; methodology, E.A. and C.R.; software, E.A. and J.G.; validation, C.R. and P.R.; formal analysis, E.A. and J.G.; investigation, E.A.; data curation, E.A. and J.G.; writing—original draft preparation, E.A. and C.R.; writing—review and editing, P.R., J.G. and L.M.R.; visualization, L.M.R., C.R. and P.R.; supervision, C.R., P.R. and L.M.R.; funding acquisition, L.M.R., C.R. and P.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Emília Alves was supported by a ALIES fellowship PADDIC 2020–2021. This project was financed by the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, Portugal) by grants UIDB/04567/2020 and UIDP/04567/2020.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Escola de Ciências e Tecnologias da Saúde da Universidade Lusófona (Opinion EC.ECTS-P01.18 approved on 15 June 2018).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Acknowledgments

A previously consented acknowledgement is due to Angela Leon, from the Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo en Criotecnología de Alimentos (CIDCA), Universidad de La Plata, Argentina.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Elias, P.M. Skin barrier function. Curr. Allergy Asthma Rep. 2008, 8, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Feingold, K.R.; Denda, M. Regulation of permeability barrier homeostasis. Clin. Dermatol. 2012, 30, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Montero-Vilchez, T.; Cuenca-Barrales, C.; Rodriguez-Pozo, J.-A.; Diaz-Calvillo, P.; Tercedor-Sanchez, J.; Martinez-Lopez, A.; Molina-Leyva, A.; Arias-Santiago, S. Epidermal barrier function and skin homeostasis in atopic dermatitis: The impact of age. Life 2022, 12, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wieërs, G.; Belkhir, L.; Enaud, R.; Leclercq, S.; Philippart de Foy, J.-M.; Dequenne, I.; de Timary, P.; Cani, P.D. How probiotics affect the microbiota. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2020, 9, 454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. La Fata, G.; Weber, P.; Mohajeri, M.H. Probiotics and the Gut Immune System: Indirect Regulation. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2018, 10, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fang, Z.; Lu, W.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, H.; Qian, L.; Wang, Q.; Chen, W. Probiotics modulate the gut microbiota composition and immune responses in patients with atopic dermatitis: A pilot study. Eur. J. Nutr. 2020, 59, 2119–2130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Slattery, C.; Cotter, P.D.; O’Toole, P.W. Analysis of health benefits conferred by Lactobacillus species from kefir. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Üstün-Aytekin, Ö.; Şeker, A.; Arısoy, S. The effect of in vitro gastrointestinal simulation on bioactivities of kefir. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 55, 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Garrote, G.L.; Abraham, A.G.; De Antoni, G.L. Inhibitory power of kefir: The role of organic acids. J. Food Prot. 2000, 63, 364–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bengoa, A.A.; Iraporda, C.; Garrote, G.L.; Abraham, A.G. Kefir micro-organisms: Their role in grain assembly and health properties of fermented milk. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 126, 686–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Farnworth, E.R. Kefir—A complex probiotic. Food Sci. Technol. Bull. Funct. Foods 2005, 2, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Nielsen, B.; Gürakan, G.C.; Ünlü, G. Kefir: A multifaceted fermented dairy product. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2014, 6, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Algiert-Zielińska, B.; Mucha, P.; Rotsztejn, H. Lactic and lactobionic acids as typically moisturizing compounds. Int. J. Dermatol. 2019, 58, 374–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lew, L.C.; Liong, M.T. Bioactives from probiotics for dermal health: Functions and benefits. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2013, 114, 1241–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Huseini, H.F.; Rahimzadeh, G.; Fazeli, M.R.; Mehrazma, M.; Salehi, M. Evaluation of wound healing activities of kefir products. Burns 2012, 38, 719–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rodrigues, K.L.; Caputo, L.R.; Carvalho, J.C.; Evangelista, J.; Schneedorf, J.M. Antimicrobial and healing activity of kefir and kefiran extract. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2005, 25, 404–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rodrigues, K.L.; Carvalho, J.C.T.; Schneedorf, J.M. Anti-Inflammatory properties of kefir and its polysaccharide extract. Inflammopharmacology 2005, 13, 485–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Poutahidis, T.; Kearney, S.M.; Levkovich, T.; Qi, P.; Varian, B.J.; Lakritz, J.R.; Ibrahim, Y.M.; Chatzigiagkos, A.; Alm, E.J.; Erdman, S.E. Microbial symbionts accelerate wound healing via the neuropeptide hormone oxytocin. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e78898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Alves, E.; Gregório, J.; Baby, A.R.; Rijo, P.; Rodrigues, L.M.; Rosado, C. Homemade kefir consumption improves skin condition —A study conducted in healthy and atopic volunteers. Foods 2021, 10, 2794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alves, E.; Rijo, P.; Rodrigues, L.M.; Rosado, C. Probiotics in the gut-skin axis–the case of kefir. Biomed. Biopharm. Res. 2021, 18, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Association, W.M. World medical association declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013, 310, 2191–2194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Ellis, S.R.; Nguyen, M.; Vaughn, A.R.; Notay, M.; Burney, W.A.; Sandhu, S.; Sivamani, R.K. The skin and gut microbiome and its role in common dermatologic conditions. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Plaza-Diaz, J.; Ruiz-Ojeda, F.J.; Gil-Campos, M.; Gil, A. Mechanisms of action of probiotics. Adv. Nutr. 2019, 10, S49–S66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Uchida, Y.; Park, K. Ceramides in skin health and disease: An update. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 2021, 22, 853–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Akdeniz, M.; Gabriel, S.; Lichterfeld-Kottner, A.; Blume-Peytavi, U.; Kottner, J. Transepidermal water loss in healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis update. Br. J. Dermatol. 2018, 179, 1049–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Montero-Vilchez, T.; Segura-Fernández-Nogueras, M.-V.; Pérez-Rodríguez, I.; Soler-Gongora, M.; Martinez-Lopez, A.; Fernández-González, A.; Molina-Leyva, A.; Arias-Santiago, S. Skin barrier function in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis: Transepidermal water loss and temperature as useful tools to assess disease severity. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tagami, H.; Yoshikuni, K. Interrelationship between water-barrier and reservoir functions of pathologic stratum corneum. Arch. Dermatol. 1985, 121, 642–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ye, L.; Wang, Z.; Li, Z.; Lv, C.; Man, M.-Q. Validation of GPSkin Barrier® for assessing epidermal permeability barrier function and stratum corneum hydration in humans. Skin Res. Technol. 2019, 25, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Wouters, J.T.M.; Ayad, E.H.E.; Hugenholtz, J.; Smit, G. Microbes from raw milk for fermented dairy products. Int. Dairy J. 2002, 12, 91–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bourrie, B.C.T.; Willing, B.P.; Cotter, P.D. The microbiota and health promoting characteristics of the fermented beverage kefir. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Dimidi, E.; Cox, S.; Rossi, M.; Whelan, K. Fermented foods: Definitions and characteristics, gastrointestinal health and disease. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Iraporda, C.; Abatemarco Júnior, M.; Neumann, E.; Nunes, Á.C.; Nicoli, J.R.; Abraham, A.G.; Garrote, G.L. Biological activity of the non-microbial fraction of kefir: Antagonism against intestinal pathogens. J. Dairy Res. 2017, 84, 339–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Lew, L.C.; Gan, C.Y.; Liong, M.T. Dermal bioactives from Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria. Ann. Microbiol. 2013, 63, 1047–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Notay, M.; Foolad, N.; Vaughn, A.R.; Sivamani, R.K. Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics for the treatment and prevention of adult dermatological diseases. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 2017, 18, 721–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rusu, E.; Enache, G.; Cursaru, R.; Alexescu, A.; Radu, R.; Onila, O.; Cavallioti, T.; Rusu, F.; Posea, M.; Jinga, M.; et al. Prebiotics and probiotics in atopic dermatitis (review). Exp. Ther. Med. 2019, 18, 926–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Azizi, N.F.; Kumar, M.R.; Yeap, S.K.; Abdullah, J.O.; Khalid, M.; Omar, A.R.; Osman, M.A.; Mortadza, S.A.S.; Alitheen, N.B. Kefir and its biological activities. Foods 2021, 10, 1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rather, I.A.; Bajpai, V.K.; Kumar, S.; Lim, J.; Paek, W.K.; Park, Y.H. Probiotics and atopic dermatitis: An overview. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Makrgeorgou, A.; Leonardi-Bee, J.; Bath-Hextall, F.J.; Murrell, D.F.; Tang, M.L.K.; Roberts, A.; Boyle, R.J. Probiotics for treating eczema. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 2018, 1–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bengoa, A.A.; Zavala, L.; Carasi, P.; Trejo, S.A.; Bronsoms, S.; de los Ángeles Serradell, M.; Garrote, G.L.; Abraham, A.G. Simulated Gastrointestinal conditions increase adhesion ability of Lactobacillus paracasei strains isolated from kefir to Caco-2 cells and mucin. Food Res. Int. 2018, 103, 462–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vinderola, C.G.; Duarte, J.; Thangavel, D.; Perdigón, G.; Farnworth, E.; Matar, C. Immunomodulating capacity of kefir. J. Dairy Res. 2005, 72, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Dallas, D.; Citerne, F.; Tian, T.; Silva, V.; Kalanetra, K.; Frese, S.; Robinson, R.; Mills, D.; Barile, D. Peptidomic analysis reveals proteolytic activity of kefir microorganisms on bovine milk proteins. Food Chem. 2016, 197, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Iraporda, C.; Errea, A.; Romanin, D.E.; Cayet, D.; Pereyra, E.; Pignataro, O.; Sirard, J.C.; Garrote, G.L.; Abraham, A.G.; Rumbo, M. Lactate and short chain fatty acids produced by microbial fermentation downregulate proinflammatory responses in intestinal epithelial cells and myeloid cells. Immunobiology 2015, 220, 1161–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Saito, Y.; Mihara, T.; Maruyama, K.; Saito, J.; Ikeda, M.; Tomonaga, A.; Kumagai, T. Effects of intake of Lactobacillus casei subsp. casei 327 on skin conditions: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in women. Biosci. Microbiota Food Health 2017, 36, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Gueniche, A.; Philippe, D.; Bastien, P.; Reuteler, G.; Blum, S.; Castiel-Higounenc, I.; Breton, L.; Benyacoub, J. Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study of the effect of Lactobacillus paracasei NCC 2461 on skin reactivity. Benef. Microbes 2014, 5, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ogawa, M.; Saiki, A.; Matsui, Y.; Tsuchimoto, N.; Nakakita, Y.; Takata, Y.; Nakamura, T. Effects of oral intake of heat-killed Lactobacillus brevis SBC8803 (SBL88TM) on dry skin conditions: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Exp. Ther. Med. 2016, 12, 3863–3872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Lee, D.E.; Huh, C.-S.; Ra, J.; Choi, I.-D.; Jeong, J.-W.; Kim, S.-H.; Ryu, J.H.; Seo, Y.K.; Koh, J.S.; Lee, J.-H.; et al. Clinical evidence of effects of Lactobacillus plantarum HY7714 on skin aging: A randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 25, 2160–2168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kano, M.; Masuoka, N.; Kaga, C.; Sugimoto, S.; Iizuka, R.; Manabe, K.; Sone, T.; Oeda, K.; Nonoka, C.; Miyazaki, K.; et al. Consecutive intake of fermented milk containing bifidobacterium breve strain yakult and galacto-oligosaccharides benefits skin condition in healthy adult women. Biosci. Microbiota Food Health 2013, 21, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Mori, N.; Kano, M.; Masuoka, N.; Konno, T.; Suzuki, Y.; Miyazaki, K.; Ueki, Y. Effect of probiotic and prebiotic fermented milk on skin and intestinal conditions in healthy young female students. Biosci. Microbiota Food Health 2016, 35, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Garrote, G.L.; Abraham, A.G.; De Antoni, G.L. Microbial interactions in kefir: A natural probiotic drink. In Biotechnology of Lactic Acid Bacteria: Novel Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 327–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Dai, R.; Hua, W.; Chen, W.; Xiong, L.; Li, L. The effect of milk consumption on acne: A meta-analysis of observational studies. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2018, 32, 2244–2253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rosado, C.; Ferreira, J.; Pinto, P.C.; Rodrigues, L.M. Skin barrier function evaluation by bi-compartmental analisys of TEWL dynamical measurements: Validation of new analytical conditions. Biomed. Biopharm. Res. 2012, 2, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Life 12 01075 g001 550
Figure 1. Trends in the mean TEWL recorded for both groups throughout the experimental procedure, between baseline (T0), intermediate period (T4) and end of intervention (T8).
Figure 1. Trends in the mean TEWL recorded for both groups throughout the experimental procedure, between baseline (T0), intermediate period (T4) and end of intervention (T8).
Life 12 01075 g001
Life 12 01075 g002 550
Figure 2. Trends in the mean SC hydration for both groups throughout the experimental procedure, between baseline (T0), the mid-period (T4), and the end of the intervention (T8).
Figure 2. Trends in the mean SC hydration for both groups throughout the experimental procedure, between baseline (T0), the mid-period (T4), and the end of the intervention (T8).
Life 12 01075 g002
Table
Table 1. General non-inclusion criteria.
Table 1. General non-inclusion criteria.
  • Regular consumption of kefir or any probiotic strains (as supplements or pharmaceuticals) in the 3 months prior to this study or during this study
  • Pregnancy or breastfeeding
  • Oncologic disease
  • Chronic illness involving taking regular (daily) medications such as insulin, oral antidiabetics, anti-inflammatories or immunosuppressants
  • Retinoid treatment in the 3 months prior to this study or during this study
  • Topical treatment with corticosteroids/anti-inflammatories in the study area in the 8 days prior to this study or during this study
  • Antibiotic treatment in the 30 days prior to this study or during this study
  • Skin features (naevus, macula, other) in the study areas
  • Cosmetics use involving scrubbing, or depilation at the study areas in the 30 days, or during the study period
  • Failure to comply with the guidelines of this study
Table
Table 2. Characteristics of the main study participants (relative frequency (%); mean ± SD).
Table 2. Characteristics of the main study participants (relative frequency (%); mean ± SD).
Kefir Group
(n = 12)		Control Group
(n = 15)		p-Value
Age, mean (SD), years 29.0 (13.6)23.8 (6.39)0.461 ¥
Skin Phototype 0.361
Type II, n (%) 6 (50.0)5 (33.3)
Type III, n (%) 4 (33.3)9 (60.0)
Type IV n (%) 2 (16.7)1 (6.70)
BMI, mean (SD), kg/m222.1 (3.39)22.1 (2.91)0.661 ¥
Education (highest) 0.238
Graduate, n (%)11 (91.7)13 (86.7)
Master, n (%)02 (13.3)
Doctorate, n (%)1 (8.30)0
Career 0.255
Employed, n (%)1 (8.30)0
University student, n (%)11 (91.7)15 (100)
Residence area 0.076
Urban, n (%)8 (66.7)14 (93.3)
Rural, n (%)4 (33.3)1 (6.70)
Smoking habits 0.053
Smoker, n (%)3 (25.0)0
Occasional smoker, n (%)1 (8.30)0
Non-smoker, n (%)8 (66.7)15 (100)
Alcohol consumption 0.522
Never, n (%)5 (41.7)7 (46.7)
1 to 2 times/week, n (%)6 (50.0)8 (53.3)
3 to 6 times/week, n (%)1 (8.30)0
SD—standard deviation; HK—healthy skin with kefir intake; H0—healthy skin without kefir intake. Groups comparison were made using the Chi-Square test, except (¥) where the Mann–Whitney U test was applied, with p < 0.05 for statistical significance.
Table
Table 3. Skin measurements (mean ± SD) in kefir (n = 12) and control (n = 15) groups, at baseline (T0), four weeks (T4) and eight weeks (T8) after initiating the intervention. Values were compared by the repeated-measures ANOVA with the Scheffe test for post hoc correction.
Table 3. Skin measurements (mean ± SD) in kefir (n = 12) and control (n = 15) groups, at baseline (T0), four weeks (T4) and eight weeks (T8) after initiating the intervention. Values were compared by the repeated-measures ANOVA with the Scheffe test for post hoc correction.
T0T4T8
Kefir
(n = 12)		Control
(n = 15)		p-ValueKefir
(n = 12)		Control
(n = 15)		p-ValueKefir
(n = 12)		Control
(n = 15)		p-Value
TEWL (g/m2/h)10.49 ± 2.988.18 ± 2.020.3618.59 ± 1.918.49 ± 2.081.0007.85 ± 2.087.81 ± 1.041.000
SC Hydration (a.u.)36.25 ± 7.7139.27 ± 7.490.95538.67 ± 6.9735.80 ± 10.320.98337.25 ± 6.7731.00 ± 7.320.417
TEWL—transepidermal water loss. SC—stratum corneum hydration. a.u.—arbitrary units.
Table
Table 4. Individual mean variation in epidermal water variables between the baseline (T0), the mid-period (T4), and the end of the intervention (T8). Values were compared by the repeated-measures ANOVA with the Scheffe test for post hoc correction (* p < 0.05).
Table 4. Individual mean variation in epidermal water variables between the baseline (T0), the mid-period (T4), and the end of the intervention (T8). Values were compared by the repeated-measures ANOVA with the Scheffe test for post hoc correction (* p < 0.05).
Kefir Group
(n = 12)		Control Group
(n = 15)
T0–T4 (p)T0–T8 (p)T0–T4 (p)T0–T8 (p)
TEWL (g/m2/h)1.907 (0.311)2.643 (0.043) *−0.305 (0.999)0.369 (0.997)
Hydration (a.u.)−2.417 (0.931)−1.000 (0.997)3.467 (0.650)8.526 (0.002) *
TEWL—transepidermal water loss. a.u. arbitrary units.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alves, E.; Gregório, J.; Rijo, P.; Rosado, C.; Rodrigues, L.M. The Impact of Kefir on Epidermal Water Homeostasis in Healthy Human Skin. Life 2022, 12, 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12071075

AMA Style

Alves E, Gregório J, Rijo P, Rosado C, Rodrigues LM. The Impact of Kefir on Epidermal Water Homeostasis in Healthy Human Skin. Life. 2022; 12(7):1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12071075

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alves, Emília, João Gregório, Patrícia Rijo, Catarina Rosado, and Luís Monteiro Rodrigues. 2022. "The Impact of Kefir on Epidermal Water Homeostasis in Healthy Human Skin" Life 12, no. 7: 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12071075

APA Style

Alves, E., Gregório, J., Rijo, P., Rosado, C., & Rodrigues, L. M. (2022). The Impact of Kefir on Epidermal Water Homeostasis in Healthy Human Skin. Life, 12(7), 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12071075

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