Secrets Of The Skin: A Hidden Ecosystem

Every system in our body is connected, and every process in it is affected by all others. When two processes affect each other in a bidirectional manner, they are called axes. Scientists have recently looked into the gut-skin-brain axis, or the connection between your gut and skin health and your psychological well-being.

It is commonly known that your gut has its own microbiome, consisting of bacteria that help us digest our food. Less people know that there is a similar microbiome on your skin. Right now, there are thousands of different species of bacteria, fungi, viruses, and other microorganisms living in symbiosis on the surface of your skin. The word microbe usually comes with a negative connotation, making you think of disease or parasites, but the microbes both on our skin and in our gut are vital to our health. Having an unbalanced gut microbiome, or being in dysbiosis, is often associated with various skin conditions, such as eczema, psoriasis, rosacea, or acne (Wiginton 2025).

The skin makes for a very harsh environment. It is dry and we are constantly shedding skin cells, which makes it a less than ideal place for a microbe to live. But many species have adapted to be able to handle life on the skin, and most have preferred locations on the body as well. Some bacteria prefer somewhere warm, such as the armpit or foot, whereas others thrive somewhere oily, like our face. These microbes actually work as part of our immune system. Our skin is our largest organ and prevents pathogens from entering our body. The microbes that thrive on our skin like the harsh environment, and help keep it so. Other harmful microbes often cannot survive in these conditions, and sometimes are even attacked by our skin’s microbes (Byrd et al. 2018).

The link between the gut microbiome and our psychological well-being has been well established as bidirectional, meaning they affect each other. Dysbiosis, or an imbalance, in the gut has been linked to depression, anxiety, and autism. On the other hand, stress can alter our gut microbiome and make us more susceptible for gastrointestinal disorders. Studies have even shown which bacteria, Cutibacterium, show the strongest link to our psychological well-being (Tyson-Carr et al. 2025).

Recently, proof has been found of a triple axis, the gut-skin-brain axis. Probiotics are living microorganisms in our gut and have been found to play a part in our immune system. These microbes in the gut help our immune cells distinguish between harmful and beneficial microorganisms. Bacteria in the gut also release molecules that have anti-inflammatory effects on the skin. Studies have shown that taking probiotics benefits your gut microbiome, which in turn benefits our immune system, creating a snowball effect that can be beneficial towards our skin health and psychological well-being. Probiotics have even been proven to improve some chronic inflammatory skin diseases, such as psoriasis by increasing certain microbe species in the gut (Abdi et al. 2024).

 

Wiginton, K. (2025). What Is the Skin Microbiome? WebMD. https://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/skin-microbiome

Byrd, A. L., Belkaid, Y., & Segre, J. A. (2018). The human skin microbiome. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 16(3), 143–155. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro.2017.157

Tyson-Carr, J., Leng, J., Scott, M., Adams, S., Hoptroff, M., Murphy, B., Fallon, N., Paterson, S., Thomas, A., Giesbrecht, T., & Roberts, C. (2025). Body site-specific associations between human skin microbiome composition and psychological wellbeing. British Journal of Dermatology, 193(Supplement 2), ii6–ii14. https://academic.oup.com/bjd/article/193/Supplement_2/ii6/8140349

Abdi, A., Oroojzadeh, P., Valivand, N., Sambrani, R., Lotfi, H. (2024). Immunological aspects of probiotics for improving skin diseases: Influence on the Gut-Brain-Skin Axis. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 702. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X24001682

 

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.