Skip to content

1

Peanut allergies can be life-altering and life-threatening. But in the past year there have been welcome developments in both preventing peanut allergies and in treatment of peanut allergies in children.

The latest medical advice to prevent peanut allergy is to regularly feed tiny amounts of pureed peanut products to babies before their first birthday. Even as early as the 4th month! This is the total opposite of the old advice for preventing peanut allergies, which was to avoid, avoid, avoid giving peanut products to babies.  Oops.

Experts say this method of early introduction, and frequent feeding of small amounts of the food to babies, works best for preventing the development of peanut and egg allergies. [But even with this method, some will eventually develop the food allergies.]

What is a "small amount" of peanuts that should be fed the baby? Guidelines are: "Eight grams of peanut butter (1 heaped teaspoon or 1.5 regular teaspoon) or 17 g of peanut puffs should be consumed at least twice weekly to protect against peanut allergy." However, note that this intervention does not treat peanut allergy. Instead, it is a way to try to prevent a peanut allergy from developing in young children.

But what about older children who already have peanut allergies? What can be done? The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the first ever oral immunotherapy to treat peanut allergies in children between the ages of 4 to 17 years. However, the goal of the therapy is to make children less sensitive and to decrease their allergic reactions. They are still allergic, but less so. For example, after 1 year of treatment - about 2/3 of the kids were able to tolerate 600 mg of peanut protein. Unfortunately, the other third could not.

But here too, continued exposure is important. Researchers found that after 1 year, those who could tolerate the peanut protein have to continue ingesting tiny amounts of peanut. If they stop - the children will lose their tolerance within 2 months.

Treating peanut allergies. From March 2, 2020 article in Medscape: Treating Peanut Allergy With Oral Immunotherapy: Insights From an Insider

Preventing peanut allergies. From August 28, 2019 article in Medscape (the medical site): Pureed Peanuts Advised for Infants to Stave Off Allergy

Feeding pureed peanut products regularly to babies before their first birthday could reduce their risk of developing peanut allergies later on, doctors advise.  ...continue reading "Preventing and Treating Peanut Allergies In Children"

The evidence is growing. Another recent study found that exposure to dirt and animals in the first year of life is beneficial for development of a a rich and diverse gut microbiome - that is, for greater species "richness" as well as more beneficial microbes. This is linked to lower levels of allergies and asthma in children.

So don't worry about children being exposed to animal "germs" and getting dirty! Instead, consider the microbes as having health benefits, such as developing a "robust immune system". In summary, it now appears that in the first year of life the immune system needs lots of exposure to all sorts of microbes (e.g. from pets, animals, dirt)  to "train it" to develop normally.

The Ohio State University researchers compared 5 healthy rural Amish infants to 5 healthy non-Amish urban infants in Ohio, also found that all of the rural (Amish) children were breastfed, while 2 of the urban (non-Amish) children were only formula fed (some microbial differences there). The Amish households had farm animals (cattle, sheep, and/or horses) and pets (dogs and/or cats), while the non-Amish households had no contact with livestock, but did have a pet dog or cat. Just like in other studies, one pet doesn't seem to be enough - even more animal exposure in early childhood is best for the gut microbiome. [One study found a dose-dependent effect with exposure to 5 furry pets in early childhood was needed to prevent all allergies.]

Studies find that rural (Amish) children have a low incidence of allergies and asthma, while urban children have a high incidence of allergies and asthma. In this study, an example of microbial differences in the 2 groups of children was that Bifidobacterium bacteria were "enriched" in non-Amish (urban) infants, while Roseburia species were "enriched" in Amish (rural, farm-raised) infants. Similar gut microbe differences have been observed in other studies comparing rural and urban children, and both dietary differences (e.g. farm raised children eat lots of homegrown produce) and environmental differences (animal exposure) are thought to be responsible for the differences.

From Science Daily: Keeping livestock in the yard just might help your baby's immune system  ...continue reading "Children, Animals, and Gut Microbes"

Want to prevent your children from having allergies or asthma? A recent study adds support to increasing evidence that growing up on a farm, or living among multiple pets in the first year of life is protective against developing allergies and asthma. This is because exposure to lots of animal and outdoor soil bacteria in early childhood is good for the developing immune system. The study, which was conducted by Finland's National Institute  of Health and Welfare, carried this line of work further and found that this type of beneficial farm microbial exposure could be duplicated in non-farm homes.

They found that children's risk of developing asthma decreased as the similarity of their home's bacteria became more similar to that of farm homes. The researchers analyzed living room dust from homes and found that certain types of outdoor soil microbes were beneficial for preventing asthma. They found higher levels of these bacteria (and archaea, another microbe) in homes where people wore their outdoor shoes in the house, as well as 3 or more children, and increased moisture in houses. The types of fungi found in the dust of farm and non-farm houses didn't seem to matter. The researchers mention that the same kind of protective (for asthma) results of soil microbes has also been shown in mice.

Additional thoughts reading this: The study results can be interpreted as playing and crawling outdoors is definitely beneficial to children's health, especially young children. Exposure to soil microbes! And, of course, having pets. But wearing outdoor shoes indoors is problematic in areas with high lawn and garden pesticide use (e.g. suburban NY and NJ!) because studies show the pesticides get tracked indoors. This same problem occurs in areas with high lead levels (around older homes) or other heavy metals.

From Science Daily: Farm-like indoor microbiota may protect children from asthma also in urban homes   ...continue reading "Outdoor Soil Microbes In the Home and Asthma"

1

Study after study is finding that having pets in early childhood or living on a farm with lots of exposure to animals is associated with a lower incidence of allergies. Pets with all their "germs" (bacteria and other microbes) appear to have beneficial effects on children's developing immune systems. One study from the Univ. of Gothenburg (in Sweden) actually found that the more pets a child lives with in the first year of life, the lower the incidence of later allergies in children. The results were dose-dependent - with each additional pet, the incidence of allergies is a little lower.

The numbers are amazing - allergies decreased from 49% in those with no pets to zero in those with five or more pets. The researchers suggest that there is  a “mini-farm” effect, with exposure to a number of cats and dogs protecting against all allergy development (animal, food, and pollen allergies). What an about face in medical views in a few decades! It used to be viewed that if you wanted to prevent allergies in children, then avoid pets such as dogs and cats. Hah!

From Medical Xpress: Pet-keeping in early life reduces the risk of allergy in a dose-dependent fashion

A team of researchers at the University of Gothenburg has found that when infants live with pets, they grow up to have fewer allergies and other diseases. In their paper published on the open access site PLOS ONE, the group describes their study of datasets that held information on children's health and whether they had lived with pets as infants, and what they found.  ...continue reading "Exposure to Pets in Infancy Reduces the Risk of Allergies"

More research supports that being exposed to pets during pregnancy or in the first months of life changes the gut bacteria, and in a way that is thought to be beneficial. The researchers found that infants exposed to pets prenatally or after birth (or both) had higher levels of two microbes that are associated with a lower risk of allergies and obesity. The two microbes are Ruminococcus and Oscillospira, but in case you're wondering - they are not (yet) available in probiotics.

And these differences in gut bacteria occurred no matter how the infants were born or fed (C-section, vaginal, breastfed, formula fed), or whether they received antibiotics at birth or not  - it was the pet exposure that was most important. The evidence is building that if one wants to avoid allergies in children - to have them exposed to furry pets in the first  year of life, and according to this study - perhaps before birth also. From Science Daily:

Pet exposure may reduce allergy and obesity

A new University of Alberta study showed that babies from families with pets -- 70 per cent of which were dogs -- showed higher levels of two types of microbes associated with lower risks of allergic disease and obesity.

"There's definitely a critical window of time when gut immunity and microbes co-develop, and when disruptions to the process result in changes to gut immunity," said Anita Kozyrskyj, a U of A pediatric epidemiologist....The latest findings from Kozyrskyj and her team's work on fecal samples collected from infants registered in the Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development study build on two decades of research that show children who grow up with dogs have lower rates of asthma

Her team of 12, including study co-author and U of A post-doctoral fellow Hein Min Tun, take the science one step closer to understanding the connection by identifying that exposure to pets in the womb or up to three months after birth increases the abundance of two bacteria, Ruminococcus and Oscillospira, which have been linked with reduced childhood allergies and obesity, respectively.

"The abundance of these two bacteria were increased twofold when there was a pet in the house," said Kozyrskyj, adding that the pet exposure was shown to affect the gut microbiome indirectly -- from dog to mother to unborn baby -- during pregnancy as well as during the first three months of the baby's life. In other words, even if the dog had been given away for adoption just before the woman gave birth, the healthy microbiome exchange could still take place.

The study also showed that the immunity-boosting exchange occurred even in three birth scenarios known for reducing immunity, as shown in Kozyrskyj's previous work: C-section versus vaginal delivery, antibiotics during birth and lack of breastfeeding. What's more, Kozyrskyj's study suggested that the presence of pets in the house reduced the likelihood of the transmission of vaginal GBS (group B Strep) during birth, which causes pneumonia in newborns and is prevented by giving mothers antibiotics during delivery. [Original study.]

Could this be true? Probiotics for seasonal allergies? A study by Univ. of Florida researchers reported that taking a combination probiotic of Lactobacillus gasseri, Bifidobacterium bifidum, and Bifidobacterium longum (sold as Kyo-Dophilus) for 8 weeks during spring allergy season resulted in an improvement in seasonal allergy symptoms. It must be noted that the people participating had mild seasonal allergies, not severe allergies. While they reported overall allergy symptom improvement, there was no significant improvement with eye symptoms. Too bad, because for those suffering from itchy eyes, it is a symptom that causes anguish during allergy season.

All participants had their stool (fecal) samples tested (with modern genetic sequencing) and it was found that the group taking the probiotic supplements had a beneficial shift in their overall microorganisms in the gut - with some bacteria such as Escherichia coli decreasing and the very beneficial and anti-inflammatory bacteria Faecalibacterium prausnitzii increasing. (See posts here and here on F. prausnitzii.) What was really good about the study was that it was a "double-blind, randomized clinical trial", meaning that people were randomly  assigned to the probiotic treatment or placebo group, and no one knew who was getting a placebo or the probiotic until the end of the study. The researchers say that why the probiotics improved allergy symptoms is s till not clear, but they have some theories. From Science Daily:

Allergies? Probiotic combination may curb your symptoms, new study finds

As we head into allergy season, you may feel less likely to grab a hanky and sneeze. That's because new University of Florida research shows a probiotic combination might help reduce hay fever symptoms, if it's taken during allergy season. Many published studies have shown a probiotic's ability to regulate the body's immune response to allergies, but not all of the probiotics show a benefit, UF researchers say. Scientists already know that the probiotic combination of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria, sold as Kyo-Dophilus in stores, helps maintain digestive health and parts of the immune system. They suspect that probiotics might work by increasing the human body's percentage of regulatory T-cells, which in turn might increase tolerance to hay fever symptoms.

UF researchers wanted to know if the components in this combination probiotic would help alleviate allergy symptoms. To do that, they enrolled 173 healthy adults who said they suffered seasonal allergies and randomly split them into two groups: Some took the combination probiotic; others took a placebo. Each week during the eight-week experiment, participants responded to an online survey to convey their discomfort level. Scientists also analyzed DNA from participants' stool samples to determine how their bacteria changed, because probiotics aim to deliver good bacteria to the human's intestinal system.

Participants who took the probiotic reported improvements in quality of life, compared to those taking the placebo, the study showed. For example, participants suffered fewer allergy-related nose symptoms, which meant that they were less troubled during daily activities. Researchers note that this study did not include severe allergy sufferers. But the combination of probiotics showed clinical benefit for those with more mild seasonal allergies, Langkamp-Henken said. [Original study.]

Earlier posts discussed research that showed that farm and animal (pets such as dogs) exposures in the first year of life is protective against allergies and asthma (lowers the risk of developing them). New research examined this further by looking at Amish and Hutterite groups - looking at not just "farm life", but whether children had much exposure to farm animals. The Amish have close exposure to farm animals (traditional farming methods), but the Hutterites don't (communal highly industrialized farming). Both groups studied had similar lifestyles (drank raw milk, breastfeeding, little exposure to smoking), but both groups did not have indoor pets ("taboos against indoor pets"). Thus farming methods were important for exposures to animals and their microbes.

The researchers said: "The importance of environmental exposures in the development of asthma is most exquisitely illustrated by epidemiologic studies conducted in Central Europe that show significant protection from asthma and allergic disease in children raised on traditional dairy farms. In particular, children’s contact with farm animals and the associated high microbial exposures4,5have been related to the reduced risk." Traditional farming exposed the children to an environment rich in microbes, and these children had very low rates of asthma and "distinct immune profiles that suggest profound effects on innate immunity." Once again, note the importance of microbes in the development of the immune system. From Science Daily:

Growing up on an Amish farm protects children against asthma by reprogramming immune cells

By probing the differences between two farming communities -- the Amish of Indiana and the Hutterites of South Dakota -- an interdisciplinary team of researchers found that specific aspects of the Amish environment are associated with changes to immune cells that appear to protect children from developing asthma. In the Aug. 4, 2016, issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers showed that substances in the house dust from Amish, but not Hutterite, homes were able to engage and shape the innate immune system (the body's front-line response to most microbes) in young Amish children in ways that may suppress pathologic responses leading to allergic asthma.

The Amish and Hutterite farming communities in the United States, founded by immigrants from Central Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, respectively, provide textbook opportunities for such comparative studies. The Amish and the Hutterites have similar genetic ancestry. They share similar lifestyles and customs, such as no television and a Germanic farming diet. They have large families, get childhood vaccinations, breastfeed their children, drink raw milk and don't allow indoor pets.

The communities, however, are distinct in two important ways. Although both groups depend on agriculture, their farming practices differ. The Amish have retained traditional methods. They live on single-family dairy farms and rely on horses for fieldwork and transportation. In contrast, the Hutterites live on large communal farms. They use modern, industrialized farm machinery. This distances young Hutterite children from the constant daily exposure to farm animals. The other striking difference is what Ober calls a "whopping disparity in asthma." About 5 percent of Amish schoolchildren aged 6 to 14 have asthma. This is about half of the U.S. average (10.3%) for children aged 5 to 14, and one-fourth of the prevalence (21.3%) among Hutterite children.

To understand this disparity, the researchers studied 30 Amish children 7 to 14 years old, and 30 age-matched Hutterite children. They scrutinized the children's genetic profiles, which confirmed the remarkable similarities between Amish and Hutterite children. They compared the types of immune cells in the children's blood, collected airborne dust from Amish and Hutterite homes and measured the microbial load in homes in both communities.

The first gee-whiz moment came from the blood studies. These revealed startling differences between the innate immune response from the Amish and Hutterites. "The Amish had more and younger neutrophils, blood cells crucial to fight infections, and fewer eosinophils, blood cells that promote allergic inflammation," said study co-author, immunologist Anne Sperling, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago. Gene expression profiles in blood cells also revealed enhanced activation of key innate immunity genes in Amish children.

The second eureka moment came from experiments using mice. When study co-author, immunologist Donata Vercelli, MD, professor of cellular and molecular medicine and associate director of the Asthma and Airway Disease Research Center at the University of Arizona, exposed mice to house-dust extracts, she found the airways of mice that received Amish dust were protected from asthma-like responses to allergens. In contrast, mice exposed to Hutterite house dust were not protected.

What was different? Dust collected from Amish homes was "much richer in microbial products," the authors note, than dust from Hutterite homes. "Neither the Amish nor the Hutterites have dirty homes," Ober explained. "Both are tidy. The Amish barns, however, are much closer to their homes. Their children run in and out of them, often barefoot, all day long. There's no obvious dirt in the Amish homes, no lapse of cleanliness. It's just in the air, and in the dust."

To better understand how asthma protection was achieved, the researchers used mice that lack MyD88 and Trif, genes crucial for innate immune responses. In these mice, the protective effect of the Amish dust was completely lost. "The results of the mouse experiments conclusively prove that products from the Amish environment are sufficient to confer protection from asthma, and highlight the novel, central role that innate immunity plays in directing this process," Vercelli said.

Newly published research found that children who are thumb-suckers or nail-biters are less likely to develop atopic sensitization or allergic sensitivities (as measured by positive skin-prick tests to common allergens). And, if they have both 'habits', they are even less likely to be allergic to such things as house dust mites, grass, cats, dogs, horses, wool, or airborne fungi. The finding emerges from a longitudinal study which followed the progress of 1,037 persons born in Dunedin, New Zealand in 1972-1973 from childhood into adulthood. However, the researchers found no relationship to these 2 habits to allergic asthma or "hay fever" - a contradictory finding that the researchers don't have an answer for.

"Our findings are consistent with the hygiene theory that early exposure to dirt or germs reduces the risk of developing allergies," said Professor Sears (one of the researchers).  The researchers were testing the idea that the common childhood habits of thumb-sucking and nail-biting would increase microbial exposures, affecting the immune system and reducing the development of allergic reactions also known as atopic sensitization. 31% of the children were frequent thumb suckers or nail biters.

Among all children at 13 years old, 45% showed atopic sensitization, but among those with no habits 49% had allergic sensitization; and those with one oral habit - 40% had allergic sensitization. Among those with both habits, only 31% had allergic sensitization. This trend continued into adulthood, and showed no difference depending on smoking in the household, ownership of cats or dogs; or exposure to house dust mites.

Excerpts of the study from Pediatrics: Thumb-Sucking, Nail-Biting, and Atopic Sensitization, Asthma, and Hay Fever

The hygiene hypothesis suggests that early-life exposure to microbial organisms reduces the risk of developing allergies. Thumb-sucking and nail-biting are common childhood habits that may increase microbial exposures. We tested the hypothesis that children who suck their thumbs or bite their nails have a lower risk of developing atopy, asthma, and hay fever in a population-based birth cohort followed to adulthood. Parents reported children’s thumb-sucking and nail-biting habits when their children were ages 5, 7, 9, and 11 years. Atopic sensitization was defined as a positive skin-prick test (≥2-mm weal) to ≥1 common allergen at 13 and 32 years. 

Thirty-one percent of children were frequent thumb-suckers or nail-biters at ≥1 of the ages. These children had a lower risk of atopic sensitization at age 13 years  and age 32 years. These associations persisted when adjusted for multiple confounding factors. Children who had both habits had a lower risk of atopic sensitization than those who had only 1. No associations were found for nail-biting, thumb-sucking, and asthma or hay fever at either age.

What This Study Adds: Children who sucked their thumbs or bit their nails between ages 5 and 11 years were less likely to have atopic sensitization at age 13. This reduced risk persisted until adulthood. There was no association with asthma or hay fever.

The “hygiene hypothesis” was suggested by Strachan1 to explain why children from larger families and those with older siblings are less likely to develop hay fever. Strahan hypothesized that this could be explained if “allergic diseases were prevented by infection in early childhood transmitted by unhygienic contact with older siblings, or acquired prenatally from a mother infected by contact with her older children.” The hypothesis is supported by evidence showing that children who grow up in large families are at greater risk of coming into contact with more infections....The hygiene hypothesis remains controversial, however, as it is unable to fully explain many associations, including the rise of allergies in “unhygienic” inner-city environments, and why probiotics are ineffective at preventing allergic diseases.3

Thumb-sucking and nail-biting are common oral habits among children, although the reported prevalence varies widely, from <1% to 25%.47 These habits have the potential to increase the exposure to environmental microorganisms, and have been associated with the oral carriage of Enterobacteriaceae, such as Escherichia coli and intestinal parasite infections.812 It seems likely that thumb-sucking and nail-biting would introduce a wide variety of microbes into the body, thus increasing the diversity of the child’s microbiome. If the hygiene hypothesis is correct, it is plausible that this would influence the risk for allergies.... 

Of 1013 children providing data, 317 (31%) had ≥1 oral habit: there was no significant sex difference in prevalence of these habits. Of the 724 children who had skin-prick tests at age 13 years, 328 (45%) showed atopic sensitization. The prevalence of sensitization was lower among children who had an oral habit (38%) compared with those who did not (49%) (P = .009). The lower risk of atopic sensitization was similar for thumb-sucking and nail-biting. Children with only 1 habit were less likely to be atopic (40%) than children with no habit at all (49%), but those with both habits had the lowest prevalence of sensitization (31%) .

Labrador Retriever image Other studies have found this same association - that living with a dog or farm animal has health benefits such as lower risk of allergies and asthma. In a Swedish nationwide study looking at over a million children, the association between early exposure to dogs and farm animals and the risk of asthma was evaluated. All children born in Sweden from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2010 were included. The researchers found that exposure to dogs and farm animals during the first year of life reduces the risk of asthma in children at age 6 years. From Science Daily:

Early contact with dogs linked to lower risk of asthma

A team of Swedish scientists have used national register information in more than one million Swedish children to study the association of early life contact with dogs and subsequent development of asthma. This question has been studied extensively previously, but conclusive findings have been lacking. The new study showed that children who grew up with dogs had about 15 percent less asthma than children without dogs.

A total of more than one million children were included in the researchers' study linking together nine different national data sources, including two dog ownership registers not previously used for medical research...."Earlier studies have shown that growing up on a farm reduces a child's risk of asthma to about half. We wanted to see if this relationship also was true also for children growing up with dogs in their homes. Our results confirmed the farming effect, and we also saw that children who grew up with dogs had about 15 percent less asthma than children without dogs.

"These kind of epidemiological studies look for associations in large populations but do not provide answers on whether and how animals could protect children from developing asthma. We know that children with established allergy to cats or dogs should avoid them, but our results also indicate that children who grow up with dogs have reduced risks of asthma later in life. Thanks to the population-based design, our results are generalizable to the Swedish population, and probably also to other European populations with similar culture regarding pet ownership and farming" says Catarina Almqvist Malmros, senior author on the study, Paediatrician at Astrid Lindgren Children's Hospital and Professor in Clinical epidemiology at Dept of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

An interesting Canadian study that followed young children for 3 years found that young infants may be more likely to develop allergic asthma if they lack four beneficial bacteria in their gut. Children with low levels of Lachnospira, VeillonellaFaecalibacterium, and Rothia bacteria in their gut in their first 3 months were at higher risk for asthma and tended to receive more antibiotics than healthier children before they turned 1 year old.

Other studies have shown that the risk of developing asthma and allergies has been linked with such things as taking antibiotics, cesarean birth, bottle fed with formula, not living on a farm, and not having furry pets in the first year of life.

The researchers wrote: "Our findings indicate that in humans, the first 100 days of life represent an early-life critical window in which gut microbial dysbiosis {the microbial community being out of whack} is linked to the risk of asthma and allergic disease." How do the infants get these microbes? It is thought that infants get exposed to the mother's microbiome (microbial community) via vaginal birth, breast-milk, and mouth contact with the mother's skin.  From NPR News:

Missing Microbes Provide Clues About Asthma Risk

The composition of the microbes living in babies' guts appears to play a role in whether the children develop asthma later on, researchers reported Wednesday. The researchers sampled the microbes living in the digestive tracts of 319 babies, and followed up on the children to see if there was a relationship between their microbes and their risk for the breathing disorder. In the journal Science Translational Medicine, the researchers report Wednesday that those who had low levels of four bacteria were more likely to develop asthma by the time they were 3-years-old.

Specifically, the researchers focused on 22 children who showed early signs of asthma, such as wheezing, when they were 1-year-old. They were much more likely than the other children to have had low levels of the four bacteria when they were 3-months-old. By the time they turned 3, most had developed full-blown asthma."The bottom line is that if you have these four microbes in high levels you have a very low risk of getting asthma," says Brett Finlay, a microbiologist at the University of British Columbia who helped conduct the research. "If you don't have these four microbes or low levels of these microbes you have a much greater chance of asthma."

Asthma is a common and growing problem among children. Evidence has been accumulating that one reason may be a disruption in the healthful microbes children get early in life, Finlay says."There's all these smoking guns like, for example, if you breast-feed versus bottle feed you have less asthma," he says. "If you're born by C-section instead of vaginal birth you have a 20 percent higher rate of asthma. If you get antibiotics in the first year of life you have more asthma." The microbiomes of kids who aren't breast-fed and are born by Caesarean section may miss out on getting helpful bugs. Antibiotics can kill off the good bacteria that seem important for the development of healthy immune systems.

"What's become clear recently is that microbes play a major role in shaping how the immune system develops. And asthma is really an immune allergic-type reaction in the lungs," Finlay says. "And so our best guess is the way these microbes are working is they are influencing how our immune system is shaped really early in life."

To further test their theory, the researchers gave laboratory mice bred to have a condition resembling asthma in humans the four missing microbes. The intervention reduced the signs of levels of inflammation in their lungs, which is a risk factor for developing asthma.

The bacteria are from four genuses: Lachnospira, Veillonella, Faecalibacterium and Rothia. The researchers aren't exactly sure how the microbes may protect against asthma. But babies with few or none of them had low levels of a substance known as acetate, which is believed to be involved with regulating the immune system.