Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

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

Altmetrics

Downloads

162

Views

94

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

25 March 2024

Posted:

27 March 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
The vast array of interconnected microbes across earth’s ecosystems and within holobionts has been called the “Internet of Microbes.” Research into the fundamental microbial properties has demonstrated that bacteria and archaea are masters of energy and information collection, storage, transformation, and dissemination using both “wired” and wireless (at a distance) capacities. These features suggest that microbes are quantum entangled within and between earth’s holobionts, and that specific tools affecting energy and information functions could provide an effective strategy for managing microbial populations. Microbes use four critically important microbial networking functions (sound, light, electricity, and magnetism). This narrative review focuses on microbial management based on two of the four: sound and light (as well as related vibrations). These are examined as: 1) tools for managing microbial populations, 2) tools to support new technologies, and 3) tools for healing humans and other holobionts. Given microbial sensitivity to sound, light, and vibrations, it is critical that microbial populations and microbe-laden holobionts are protected from potentially damaging exposures. We conclude that sound, light, and vibrations are useful therapeutic tools that can help support useful microbial populations and help to address ongoing challenges of holobiont disease.
Keywords: 
Subject: Biology and Life Sciences  -   Immunology and Microbiology

1. Introduction

Research into the microbes of human, animal, and plant holobionts as well as ecosystems and planetary level microbial life has demonstrated the importance of being able to support, protect and manage our earth’s most predominant lifeform. 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 anti-microbial 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 critical development of the immune and other systems in early life [6,7], but also protection against: 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.
Across 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), 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 this narrative review we: 1) describe two fundamental properties of microorganisms that have the potential 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 and light approaches in driving technological improvements and 4) describe how fundamental features of microbes lead us to powerful tools for holobiont and ecological healing. However, if misdirected, such tools present a significant hazard for the Internet of Microbes.

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 has 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 the 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, 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 is via 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 is 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 is 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 microbes 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. Ramen 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 will interact with microbial populations to produce alterations. Nano-vibration 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 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 [48,49,50]. Examples of diseases and conditions where sound frequency therapy appears promising are the treatment of Parkinson’s Disease [51] and other neurological conditions [52] as well as the promotion of wound healing [53].
Sound frequencies are known to play a key factor in communication among microbes, interkingdom communication, and regulation of individual microbes and microbial communities [18,54,55]. 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. [56]. 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 [57] 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. [58] 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 growth but increase the growth of other microbes. In turn, sound frequencies can be used to optimize a variety of applications including: 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 [59]. For example, Kassewitz et al. [60] demonstrated that when dolphins focused elocution sounds on specific objects, the reflected sound was captured as images on 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 [15,16,57,58,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73].
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, infrasound. Utrasound frequencies (greater than 20 kilohertz, kHz) have been used extensively for decades in medical imaging [74,75] and food preservation applications [76]. Infrasound frequencies (below 20 Hz) extends to below the normal human hearing range [77] but are in the range used by several large mammals (e.g., baleen whales and elephants) and birds [78,79,80]. 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 [34,81]. 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 [82]. Vibrational spectroscopy is also proving to be useful for microbial analysis in disease vs. healthy comparisons [83].
Table 2 provides examples of ultra- and infra- sounds and microbes [84,85,86,87,88,89,90].

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) [91]. As described by Santos et al. [92], 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 [93,94]. The term photobiomodulation has been become associated with therapy using non-ionizing light sources (e.g., LED, lasers, and broadband light) in the visible and infared spectrums [92,95]. The therapeutic frequencies encompass a range of approximately 600-1200 nm with different frequencies having different skin penetration capacities [92]. Photobiomodulation therapy has been shown to have applications ranging from treatment of inflammatory and metabolic diseases [96] to dermatological diseases [97], neurological conditions [98] and oral diseases [99]. Anytime misregulated inflammation is being addressed by therapies, it is important to look at the microimmunosome as an initiation point of inflammatory regulation [12,100]. 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 that 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. Anti-microbial light and radiation exposure represent a major approach to provide food safety and various anti-contamination strategies. For example, Shahi et al. [101] provided a comprehensive review of the radiation and light emission capacities to inactivate viruses and microorganisms in food processing and other routes of pathogenic transition. For non-ionizing radiation, microwave, ultraviolet, infrared, laser light, and radiofrequency were considered. Ultraviolet light exposure has long been an approach for microorganism inactivation. Masjoudi et al. [102] 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. [103] used multi-beam excitation, multi-wavelength 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. [104] demonstrated that exposure of skin to narrow band ultraviolet light shifted the gut microbiome, significantly increasing both alpha and beta diversity in the non-vitamin D supplementing group enriching for 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 non-supplementing 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. [105] following the skin exposure of mice to narrow band (311nm) ultraviolet light. Narrow band ultraviolet light photo therapy has also been reported to be effective in skin microbiome management of inflammatory allergic dermatitis as reviewed in Dewi et al. [106].
In a recent study, phototherapy treatment (blue LED light with peak wavelength 425–475nm) 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 [107]. Additionally, Santos et al. [92] provided a recent review of photobiomodulation therapy as it applies to the human microbiome with an emphasis on red or near infared light treatments and the vaginal microbiome.
Light can affect different signaling, metabolic activities, and intra-kingdom vs. inter-kingdom communications involving microbes. For example, Xi et al. [108] 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 non-competitive trees). Results from this study can help to guide strategies involving light + soil microbes in the restoration of ecologically-damaged areas.
Table 3 illustrates examples of the effects of light on microorganisms [92,95,96,104,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126].
The studies and reviews in Table 3 illustrate several key points: 1) light (duration, type) dramatically impacts circadian rhythm, and this is signifcantly 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 infared and ultraviolet light can be theraputic 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 microimmunsome and the gut-brain axis. 6) Light conditions and treaments apply to human microbiome and human health as well as to the parellel in agriculture (production animals, plants, 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 hazadardous, 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 chonic 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 [2,8,127,128]. Hence, it is a useful time to seek alternatives [129]. 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 internet of microbial reservoirs on the planet.
This narrative review builds upon a prior review dealing with ancient and alternative healting 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 microorgansims 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.

Author Contributions

For this narrative review, RRD led the drafting of each section and overall content. RRD also drafted the Tables and Graphical Abstract. JMD contributed significant content to the sections and Tables on sound. JMD also led editing and organization of the paper. Both authors reviewed and approved this submission. 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 conflict 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]
  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]
  5. Naimi, S.; Viennois, E.; Gewirtz, A.T.; Chassaing, B. Direct impact of commonly used dietary emulsifiers on human gut microbiota. Microbiome 2021, 9, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  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]
  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]
  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]
  11. Laue, H.E. , Coker, M.O. and Madan, J.C., 2022. 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. and Kozyrskyj, A.L., 2020. 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. 2011. 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. 2022. 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.; Cao, J.; 2023. Elucidating interprotein energy transfer dynamics within the antenna network from purple bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 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.; Engel, G.S. Photosynthesis tunes quantum-mechanical mixing of electronic and vibrational states to steer exciton energy transfer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2021, 118, e2018240118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  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. Physics 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. 2022, March. A Repeater Antenna System Utilizing Genetically Modified Bacteria for Multiscale Communications. In 2022 16th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP) IEEE 2022 (pp. 1-4). https://ieeexplore.ieee. 9887. [Google Scholar]
  28. Chen, X.; Cai, H.; Xue, S.; 2024. Quantum-based optical sensors for enhanced energy-efficient wireless communication. Opt Quant Electron 2024, 56, 413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Karthikeyan, B.; Velvizhi, G.; 2024. A state-of-the-art on the application of nanotechnology for enhanced biohydrogen production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energ. 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. Comm. 2024, 15, 903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  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]
  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, I.I.; JA, R.R.; Ayisire, O.E. Sound Therapy: Vibratory Frequencies of Cells in Healthy and Disease States. EC Clinical and Medical Case Reports 2022, 5, 112–123. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kobayashi, M.; Kikuchi, D.; Okamura, H. 2009. 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]
  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]
  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]
  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. 2009. 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]
  42. Wang, H.; Li, Q.; Alam, P.; Bai, H.; Bhalla, V.; Bryce, M.R.; Cao, M.; Chen, C.; Chen, S.; Chen, X.; Chen, Y. 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. 2015, 112, 378–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Cui, D.; Kong, L.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, Y.; and Zhang, C. In situ identification of environmental microorganisms with Raman spectroscopy. Environl 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. 2023. 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] [PubMed]
  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]
  48. Bartel, L.; Mosabbir, A. Possible Mechanisms for the Effects of Sound Vibration on Human Health. Healthcare 2021, 9, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. 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, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. 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]
  51. 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]
  52. Giammalva, G.R.; Gagliardo, C.; Marrone, S.; Paolini, F.; Gerardi, R.M.; Umana, G.E.; Ya˘gmurlu, 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]
  53. 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]
  54. Xu, D.; Xiao, Y.F. 2020. Listening to the sound of a bacterium. Nat. Nanotech. 2020, 15, 420–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. 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. Nanotech 2020, 15, 469–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Matsuhashi, M.; Pankrushina, A.N.; Takeuchi, S.; Ohshima, H.; Miyoi, H.; Endoh, K.; Murayama, K.; Watanabe, H.; Endo, S.; Tobi, M.; Mano, Y. 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] [PubMed]
  57. Znidersic, E.; Watson, D.M. 2022. Acoustic restoration: Using soundscapes to benchmark and fast-track recovery of ecological communities. Ecol. Lett. 2022, 25, 1597–1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. 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]
  59. Reid, J.S. 2006. The Special Relationship Between Sound And Light, With Implications For Sound And Light Therapy. Subtle Energies Energy Med. 2006, 17, 215–247. Available online: https://journals.sfu.ca/seemj/index.php/seemj/article/view/47 (accessed on 11 March 2024).
  60. Kassewitz, J.; Hyson, M.T.; Reid, J.S.; Barrera, R.L. A phenomenon discovered while imaging dolphin echolocation sounds. J. Marine Sci. Res. Dev. 2016, 6, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cui, B.; Su, D.; Li, W.; She, X.; Zhang, M.; Wang, R.; Zhai, Q. 2018. Effects of chronic noise exposure on the microbiome-gut-brain axis in senescence-accelerated prone mice: implications for Alzheimer’s disease. J. Neuroinflammation 2018, 15, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. 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] [PubMed]
  63. Gu, S.; Zhangl, 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]
  64. 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]
  65. 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]
  66. 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]
  67. 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]
  68. 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]
  69. 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]
  70. Sarvaiya, N.; Kothari, V. Audible sound in form of music can influence microbial growth, metabolism and antibiotic susceptibility. J. Appl. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2017, 2, 00048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. 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]
  72. 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]
  73. 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 & Science 2022, 5, 20592043221080965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. 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]
  75. 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]
  76. 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]
  77. Leventhall, G. What is infrasound? Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 2007, 93, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. 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]
  79. Burnham, R.E. Whale geography: A species-centric approach applied to migration. Progr. Phys. Geogr: Earth Environ. 2020, 44, 419–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. 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.; Zeyl, J.N. Albatross movement suggests sensitivity to infrasound cues at sea. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2023, 120, e2218679120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. 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]
  82. Kim, C.; Guo, A.; Salhotra, G.; Sprinkhuizen, S.; Shetty, K.; Kong, D.S. Sonifying data from the human microbiota: Biota beats. Computer Music J. 2020, 44, 51–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. 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] [PubMed]
  84. 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]
  85. 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. The Environmentalist 2012, 32, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Martirosyan, V.; Ayrapetyan, S. 2015. 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]
  87. 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. 2022. Ultrasound-controllable engineered bacteria for cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Comm. 2022, 13, 1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. 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]
  89. 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]
  90. 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]
  91. da Silva, T.G. , Ribeiro, R.S., Mencalha, A.L. and de Souza Fonseca, A. 2023. Photobiomodulation at molecular, cellular, and systemic levels. Lasers Med. Sci. 2023, 38, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. 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]
  93. 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]
  94. 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]
  95. 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]
  96. 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]
  97. Mineroff, J.; Maghfour, J.; Ozog, DD.; Lim, HW.; Kohli, I.; Jagdeo, J. Photobiomodulation CME Part II: Clinical Applications in Dermatology. J. Amer. Acad. Dermatol. 2024, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Shen, Q.; Guo, H.; Yan, Y. Photobiomodulation for Neurodegenerative Diseases: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. 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]
  100. 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]
  101. 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]
  102. Masjoudi, M.; Mohseni, M.; Bolton, J.R. Sensitivity of bacteria, protozoa, viruses, and other microorganisms to ultraviolet radiation. Journal of Research of the Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 2021, 126, 1–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. 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. Journal of Environmental Management 2024, 350, 119597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. 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]
  105. 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]
  106. 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.; Salsabila, C.A. Managing the Skin Microbiome as a New Bacteriotherapy for Inflammatory Atopic Dermatitis. Cureus 2023, 15, e48803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. 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: AMS. 2023, 19, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. 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]
  109. 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]
  110. Chen, P.J.; Nakano, T.; Lai, C.Y.; Chang, K.C.; Chen, C.L.; Goto, S. 2021. Daily full spectrum light exposure prevents food allergy-like allergic diarrhea by modulating vitamin D3 and microbiota composition. NPJ Biofilms and Microbiomes 2021, 7, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. 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]
  112. 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]
  113. 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]
  114. 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]
  115. 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. 2019. Light-stress influences the composition of the murine gut microbiome, memory function, and plasma metabolome. Front. in Mol. Biosci. 2019, 6, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. 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]
  117. Lu, Y. , Yang, J., Dong, C., Fu, Y. and Liu, H., 2021. Gut microbiome-mediated changes in bone metabolism upon infrared light exposure in rats. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B, Bio. 2021, 217, 112156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. 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]
  119. 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]
  120. 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]
  121. Wu, G.; Tang, W.; He, Y.; Hu, J.; Gong, S.; He, Z.; Wei, G.; Lv, L.; Jiang, Y.; Zhou, H.; Chen, P. Light exposure influences the diurnal oscillation of gut microbiota in mice. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2018, 501, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. 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 Envir. 2023, 858, 160041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. 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]
  124. Zhao, K.; Ma, B.; Xu, Y.; Stirling, E.; Xu, J. Light exposure mediates circadian rhythms of rhizosphere microbial communities. The ISME J. 2021, 15, 2655–2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. 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]
  126. 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]
  127. 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]
  128. Dietert, R.R. Time for a Change: The End of the Pharmacracy. Am. J. Biomed. Sci. Res. 2023, 20, 205–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. 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]
Table 1. Examples of Sound Frequencies, Cymatics, Music, and Microbe Alterations.
Table 1. Examples of Sound Frequencies, Cymatics, Music, and Microbe Alterations.
Research Studies
and Reviews
[Reference]		 Research Approach
(for experimental studies)		 Experimental
Results/
Review Implications
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.
[61]		 Groups of three-month-old male SAMP8 mice were exposed to different levels of white noise (88 or 98 dB) for 4 hours 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. 		Noise exposure (as well as aging)
produced lower β diversity
(vs the control group)
and significantly increased the
Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio.
At the genus level, noise
increased
the levels of
Candidatus Jettenia,
Denitratisoma, and
SM1A02. Chronic noise
impaired
both intestinal and
brain endothelial tight
junctions and elevated
biomarkers for systemic
inflammation. Finally,
Hippocampal amyloid-β (Aβ)
was significantly elevated
in the noise-exposed groups
(vs. controls) and this elevated
Aβ could be transferred to
non-noise exposed recipient
mice by fecal microbiota
transplantation.
Experimental comparison in South Africa of exposure of wine grape plants to music vs. controls
[62]		 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 had: 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 impact of a variety of different sound frequencies examined on the growth characteristics and intercellular macromolecular of E. coli K-12.
[63] 		For this in vitro study,
within an experimental
apparatus, both the sound
frequency and intensity
level were adjusted
by a waveform generator
and the amplifying circuit
in the sound-wave generating unit. Sound frequency varied from 250 to 16,000 Hz and maintained sound intensity level 80 dB and sound power level 55 dB. The level of sound intensity varied from 0 to100 dB. The sound power level varied from 55 to 63 dB and maintained 8 kHz and
80 dB.		 With a peak growth, six-hour
exposure of E. coli K-12 to a
frequency 8 kHz, intensity
level 80 dB and power level
61 dB, biomass significantly
increased (approximately 1.7
times that of the no-sound
control group), intracellular
macromolecular synthesis
more than doubled vs.
controls, and the average
length of the E. coli K-12
cells increased more
than 27.26%.
Experimental study comparing the effects of music vs. white noise on mice
[64]		 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: mice with
Mozart for two 1.5 hour 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.		 For weight, the music group
was elevated over the
control while the
white noise group was
reduced vs. the controls.
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
[65]		 Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain CLIB382 isolated from a 1950 Irish brewery was used as the microbe. Two sound frequencies were examined (100Hz) and 10kHZ) 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 hours after inoculation and then every 4 hours until completion (approximately 40 hours). 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 1,000 Hz frequency sound with and
without microaeration on poultry litter digestion
[66]		 The effects of sound (1,000 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 futher sampling of biogas and microbes conducted at 23 weeks and 42 weeks of operation. The treatments of sound and
microaeration both significantly
increased microbial
diversity beyond controls over
the course of treatment.
A shift in the proportions of
Firmicutes (increased) to
Bacteroidetes (decreased)
was also noted.
Study examining the
effects of different sound
frequencies on a variety
of microbial functions
within osmotic microbial fuel cells
[67]		 Bacteria were stimulated
for 5-6 hours per day with a sound wave having an
intensity of 60–80 dB
and a frequency range
from 20-1000 Hz.		 Sound stimulation
significantly
increased both organic
matter degradation and
power generation from
the bacteria-based
fuel cell. It also
reduced the osmotic fuel
cell start-up time (which requires
sufficient bacterial enrichment) by
2–3 days.
Different sound frequencies were tested on growth and secondary metabolite function among halogenic unicellular green microalgae Dunaliella salina. This article also provides review information of prior studies across ultrasound, audible sound and infrasound.
[58]		 Reseachers investigated
the effects of 100, 200,
500, 1000 Hz (90 dB
intensity)
sound
on protein
biomass and cell
division of 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.		 Among the sound frequencies,
all increased growth with
200Hz facilitating maximum
Growth (50% increase in dry mass
vs. control). 1000 Hz decreased
growth vs. the control. Nitrite
deficient media causes cell
wall stress but
the 200 Hz sound appeared
to minimize stress damage
and still facilitated
increased growth.
Study of in situ effects of acoustic music on the motility and swimming
ability of Escherichia coli.
[68]		 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. 		Music was found to
be capable of increasing
E. coli movement.
Motility was determined
in the indirect assay. A
significant increase in
motility was seen
in the Highfast (24% increase)
and Midfast (14 % increase)
groups vs. the control.
Direct analysis of swimming
found that average speed
and absolutely average
velocity (AAV) increased
significantly for both
the Highfast and Midfast
groups vs. controls. AAV in
the former group increased
by approximately 60%.
The Midslow group had
extensive variability..
A study of the effects of acoustic sound vibrations on Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
[69]		 The study used a 100 Hz
vibration system to
examine vibrational stress
and chemicals on
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
strain PAO1 tolerance
after 48-hr culture. 		Among the metabolic changes
were increases in the levels of fatty acids and their
derivatives,
N-acylethanolamines, and
quinolones upon sound exposure, with decreased levels
of rhamnolipids. Upregulation
of fabY (1.5-fold), fadE (1.7-fold),
and pqsA (1.4-fold) genes were
found with a downregulation
of the rhlA gene (1.3-fold). The
effects of chemical modifiers
(e.g., sodium oleate) were
also discussed.
A study on the effects of
Indian classical music on growth, metabolism and antibiotic susceptibility in microbial cultures
[70] 		Eight different prokaryotic and eukaryotic microbes were tested using music ranging in frequency from 41-645 Hz with the decibel range of 95-110 dB. Among the eight organisms
examined (Xanthomonas
campestris, Chromobacterium
violaceum, Serratia marcescens,
Staphylococcus aureus,
Streptococcus
pyogenes, Streptococcus mutans,
Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Candida
albicans), music enhanced growth
and antibiotic susceptibility for all organisms except S.
marcescens. All organisms had increased specific metabolite
production.
Study of cell consciousness metabolism in response to different acoustic vibrations
among Escherichia coli k-12
[71] 		The protocol examined the effects of six different time durations (range of 5-30 min.) Two single frequency sounds (500 Hz and 1,000 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. With continuous exposure,
the Pali chant sound group
had consistently significant
elevations in growth for
the 5-25 minutes
evaluation times vs. the other groups. The only exception
was the 500 Hz group also
had a significant elevation
in growth
(vs. 1,000 Hz and the control)
at the 10-minute
evaluation timepoint.
Review article discussing the significance of bio-acoustic communication among microbes and across kingdom boundaries. It also considers electromagenetic induction of sound.
[16]		 Not Applicable
(N/A)		 This 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 inter-microbe 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]		 N/A This review provides and
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.
[72]		 N/A Among 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
[73]		 N/A This 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
[57] 		N/A This 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 Infra- Sound Frequencies and Microbe Alterations.
Table 2. Examples of Ultra- and Infra- Sound Frequencies and Microbe Alterations.
Research Studies
and Reviews
[Reference(s)]		 Research Approach
(for experimental studies)		 Experimental
Results/
Review Implications
Infrasonic pulsing for
foulant removal
[84]		 This 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 multi-step cleaning process. Talc vs. yeast was use in the evaluations Infrasound pulsing produced
a four-fold improvement
in the net
flux for the experimental
talc system. For the yeast
system, it resulted in an up
to three-fold improvement.
Optimal frequency and
duration of pulsing
differed between the
two test systems.
Study of infrasound vibrations on Escherichia coli K-12 cells proliferation
[85,86]		 Radioactive labelling [3
H]-thymidine-based cell
proliferation assay was used to examine the effects of several different infrasound frequencies (2, 4, 6, 8, 10 Hz frequency, 30 dB intensity) with varying exposure durations of 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
[87]		 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 the
ultrasound trigger produced
a significant reduction in
tumor volume.
Review on use of ultrasound in microbial-mediated processes such as in fermented foods.
[88]		 Not Applicable
(N/A)		 This review
provides a good basis for
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.
This review focuses on use of ultrasound in dairy products.
[89]		 N/A The review provides
useful
contrasts of differing
intensity/wave amplitude
effects on microbial
populations among dairy
products. It presents a
model with the high intensity
implosion of microbubbles
leading to microbial damage.
Review of sound and ultrasound and the effects on biofilm formation and metabolism among food-related microorganisms
[90] 		N/A This review covers the
bactericidal and anti-biofilm
effects of ultrasound and also
includes sections dealing
with growth promoting
sound frequencies for
specific microbes. Finally, it
reviews ultrasound with other
factors (e.g., chelating agents,
enzymes, ozone) to
enhance protection from
food-related microbes.
Table 3. Examples of Light Treatment and Photobiomodulation (PBM) of Microbiota.
Table 3. Examples of Light Treatment and Photobiomodulation (PBM) of Microbiota.
Research Studies
and Reviews
[Reference]		 Research Approach
(for experimental studies)		 Experimental Results/
Review Implications
A review of PBM of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), inflammation and pain, stresses two main paths through which PBM influences the gut microbiome.
[95]		 Not Applicable
(N/A)		 IBD is one of the microbial dysbiosis-mediated diseases where PBM shows considerable promise.
In a review of PBM and chronic kidney disease, the pathways of PBM facilitating correction of mitochondrial dysfunction as well as gut microbiome dysbiosis are main pathways to health improvement.
[109]		 Chronic Kidney
Disease
is the focus with
gut microbiome
status as a key target.		 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 X per week)
laser treatments using
lasers at 660-nm (red) or 808-nm (infared).
[96]		 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.		 The major finding
was that by day 14 in
the trial, infared
(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 X 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.
[104]		 Pre- and post- treatment blood and fecal samples
(two samples of each from each participant) were
obtained for vitamin D
and gut
microbiota analysis.		 Vitamin D supplementation produced an increase in vitamin D levels, and UVB exposure also increased vitamin D levels. One significant finding was that 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 vadinBB60 group, Clostridia Family XIII, Coriobacteriaceae, Marinifilaceae, and Ruminococcus.
In a mouse model, the effects of daily full spectrum photo therapy were examined in 4-week-old female Balb/c mice (nine hours per day of full spectrum therapy for nine weeks duration).
[110]		 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). Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) was also used from OVA food allergic (FA) 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 allergy mice were capable of transferring the OVA allergic phenotype. The
phototherapy was
found to significantly reduce allergic diarrhea, improve vitamin D3
and intestinal levels of nuclear factor erythroid
2-related factor 2, reduced OVA-specific IgE and IgG1 antibody levels and corrected FA-associated elevation in specific cytokines. Among changes in the gut microbiome, the OVA-FA group were significantly elevated in the Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio while phototherapy reduced the ratio such that it was not different from the controls. Specific microbiota changes were also noted.
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.
[111].		 This commentary
compared data from
two different studies. 		The commentary concluded that 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-hour light, 12-dark cycle were compared for changes in microbial communities and physiology as well as
for potential health risks.
[112]		 Female Sprague Dawley rats (6wks old) were exposed to continuous light or 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. 		The hormone profiles, metabolic gene expression and histology suggested the rats with constant light (and circadian disruption) were acquiring a
polycystic ovary syndrome
phenotype. For the continuous light group vs. control, microbiome analysis found that Parasutterella was
enriched while Corynebacterium, genus Odoribacter, and Acinetobacter had reduced abundance.
In a mouse model, ten-week-old male C57BL/6J mice were exposed to continuous light vs. a 12-hour light 12-hour dark cycle to determine the role of melatonin in regulating light induced microbial dysbiosis.
[113]		 Constant light was found to produce both an obesity
phenotype and gut
microbiome dysbiosis
(elevated Firmicutes to 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 corrected both the aberrant lipid metabolism and the constant light shifts in gut microbiome distribution was also significantly corrected.
In a mouse model, the effects of far-infared (FIR) light were examined on gut microbiota.
[114]		 C57BL/6J mice were
exposed for 2 min. intervals 3X or 5X 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 was to the mouse abdomen with electromagnetic waves of 4 – 20 mm with 85.61% average
FIR emissivity and photon energy level 12.4 MeV–1.7 eV. A two-hour interval between FIR exposures was used.		 FIR treatment resulted
in two major effects: a
reduction in the prevalence of phylum
Deferribacteres
(comprised of several
pathogens)
and a significant increase
in the prevalence of beneficial genera (e.g., Alistipes, Barnesiella, and Prevotella).
FIR also upregulated 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.
[115]		 In C57BL/6J male mice,
the three lighting
conditions were used
over a 12-week period
with microbiome
analysis at baseline
and at
4-wk intervals and
behavioral and plasma
metabolic analysis after
12 weeks.		 Mice exposure to continuous light had a significant short-term reduction in memory potential. For the 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.
[Li et al. 2023 116]		 Twenty-nine different soil sampling sites across 10
urban turf parks were
used in the vicinity of
the Ningbo city in
China. Artificial light
levels were obtained via
satellite remote sensing. DNA extraction, Illumina
sequencing, and high throughput PCR was all
utilized in the analysis of
soil samples. 		The 29 sampling sites varied significantly in ALAN
intensity. The study
reported that ALAN was
an important factor affecting the structures of fungal,
bacterial, and protist
communities. Functional profiles and nutrient cycling were also affected which can impact urban plant health. Some evidence was obtained that fungal phytopathogens may gain an advantage with higher intensity ALAN.
In a study using rats, the effects of infared light on gut microbiota changes and bone loss was evaluated.
[117]		 Because artificial
LED white light does
not include
infared light, the researchers investigated the effects of supplementing the LED light with infared (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 occured for 30 minutes each day for the three months of the project. 		IR supplementation significantly increased the abundance of Clostridiaceae 1 and Erysipelotrichaceae
bacteria and reduced the abundance of
Saccharibacteria. IR also increased bone metabolism and this correlated with the gut microbiome changes.
In a mouse study, the effects of mid-infared light on gut microbiota and cognitive decline were examined.
[118]		 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-infared light (MIR) on gut microbiota and learning, memory, and amyloid-β (Aβ) plaque load. Behavioral test, 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.		 The MIR treatment caused a distinct gut microbiome profile in which there was an increased abundance of Bacteroidetes
and Verrucomicrobia, with decreased Fimicutes. Bacterial diversity was also increased over the AD (no MIR)
group. Significant MIR effects were also seen at the genus level. MIR also attenuated the 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.
[119]		 Male Sprague-Dawley
were exposed to a
modified
16/8 h light/dark
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 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 vs. 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.
[120]		 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.		 Three major outcomes
were reported by the
investigators. 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
produced decreased
Butyricicoccus,
Clostridium, and
Turicibacter, decreased
butyrate levels, and
increased indications of
a compromised
gut barrier.
In mice, light oscillation effects on gut microbiota were examined.
[121]		 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. It was noted that 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.
[122]		 This study examined the
role of intermittent
photoperiod-induced
regulation as it influences
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 had 4
intermittent photoperiod
cycles (Low-I), and a
group that had 16
intermittent
photoperiod cycle
within the 16 h light
period (High-I). Cecal sample DNA extraction and
16S rRNA amplicon
sequencing analysis
was used in the
microbiota analysis.
Cecal metabolic and
serum biomarker
analyses were also conducted. 		Detailed analysis of clock related gene expression, metabolic and immune markers, melatonin levels, and microbiota composition and metabolism led to several significant conclusions. 1)
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 fed back to enhance clock gene expression in the hypothalmus, liver, and cecal wall.
Light therapy for canine atopic dermatitis and skin microbiome dysbiosis was examined.
[123]		 The effects of topical 308-nm excimer light was 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 non- atopic dogs. A variety of parameters were quantitated.
 For CAD dogs, the light
therapy significantly
reduced atopic
dermatitis and altered
composition of the skin
microbiome
(increased Actinobacteria and Cyanobacteria phyla), increased microbial
diversity and
decreased atopic-associated Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. Skin barrier function also improved. No adverse effects were noted.
The interaction between light exposure and the circadian rhythm of the rhizosphere was examined.
[124]		 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 hours 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. DD activity was significantly lower in the D-D samples than in
the L-D samples.
In the rhizosphere,
the proportion of
the taxa with
circadian rhythms
differed significantly
between the L-D and
D-D treatment groups. The overall findings shed light
on the regulation
mechanisms for
circadian rhythms
within the microbial
communities of the
rice rhizosphere.
Review of UV radiation (UVR) effects on skin and skin microbiome in humans.
[125]		 N/A The authors provide a comprehensive review of 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
spectras of
light and microbiome-driven health effects.
[92]		 N/A The recent findings evaluated in this review effectively extend the utility of photobiomodulation beyond the gut microbiome to the vagina, its microbiome and local immune defense against pathogens.
Review of phototherapy effects relative to both the human microbiome
and disease.
[126]		 N/A This literature review considers the effects of red light and near infared light on both rodents and humans. The implication for both the gut microbiome and risk of disease are presented in this literature review. The authors conclude that this is a promising avenue for disease prevention and treatment and 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.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated