Microplastics and the microbiome

Whether ingested micro- and nanoplastics measurably reshape the mammalian gut microbiome is now a question with hundreds of experimental answers. Across rodents, fish, invertebrates, human fecal cohorts, and in vitro simulators, the same broad pattern keeps appearing: reduced alpha diversity, phylum-level rebalancing between Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, changes in mucin-degrading and short-chain fatty acid-producing taxa, and downstream shifts in the metabolites those communities generate [1-5]. The pattern is remarkably consistent across polymers and species. The magnitudes vary. The doses used to elicit them are, in most published work, considerably higher than the best current estimates of daily human intake.

This piece walks through what the microbiome literature actually shows: where the evidence is strongest, where it is weakest, and what a careful reader should conclude about the microbiome as a target of plastic exposure.

Why this matters

The gut microbiome is not a passive resident. It ferments soluble fiber into short-chain fatty acids that feed colonocytes, calibrates the immune system, regulates bile acid pools, and produces neuroactive metabolites that reach the brain through the vagus nerve and circulation [6-7]. Any exposure that shifts community composition, or that acts on the epithelial barrier the microbiome lives against, has plausible reach into metabolic, immune, neurologic, and reproductive endpoints.

Plastic exposure meets the microbiome at three points. First, in the lumen, where ingested particles physically colocalize with microbial biofilms and provide inert or leaching surfaces that some taxa prefer over others [8-10]. Second, at the mucus layer and epithelium, where particle contact modulates mucin secretion, tight junction expression, and local inflammation [11-13]. Third, in the microbes-as-carriers direction: particles arrive with an adherent community assembled outside the host, sometimes enriched for pathogens and antibiotic resistance genes [14-16]. Each of these routes is documented; each is worth examining on its own.

Background: the vocabulary the literature uses

A few working definitions make the rest of this article easier to read.

Microplastics are polymer particles smaller than five millimeters; nanoplastics are the sub-micron fraction, usually defined below 1 μm and sometimes below 100 nm [17-18]. The nano range is where cellular uptake, tissue distribution, and barrier crossing become likely — a threshold covered in detail in our companion piece on where the biology fundamentally changes.

Alpha diversity describes how many distinct taxa live inside a single sample and how evenly they are distributed. Beta diversity describes how different two samples are from each other. Both are common readouts of microbiome disturbance studies and both are sensitive to sequencing depth, DNA extraction chemistry, and reference database.

Dysbiosis is a loose term for a microbial community shifted away from what a healthy host looks like. It is not a diagnosis. It is a description of a distance in high-dimensional taxonomic space.

Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), chiefly acetate, propionate, and butyrate, are microbial fermentation products of dietary fiber and resistant starch. Butyrate in particular is the preferred energy substrate of the colonocyte and a signaling molecule that modulates T-regulatory cell development.

Akkermansia muciniphila is a mucin-degrading Verrucomicrobia species associated with metabolic health in humans and with mucus-layer thickness in mice. Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes are the two dominant bacterial phyla in the mammalian gut; the ratio between them shifts with diet, age, and disease, though the ratio itself is a coarse readout.

With those in hand, the mechanistic evidence.

1. Alpha and beta diversity shifts

The earliest and most reproduced microbiome finding after plastic exposure is a change in community structure that shows up as reduced richness, altered evenness, and clear separation on beta-diversity ordinations [1-2,5].

In one of the most-cited mouse studies, six weeks of 5 μm polystyrene at environmentally relevant and higher doses reduced gut mucus secretion, damaged intestinal barrier function, and shifted the community at multiple taxonomic levels [1]. A parallel five-week mouse experiment reported PS-induced dysbiosis coupled to disturbed hepatic lipid metabolism [2]. Zebrafish exposed for 21 days to 5 μm polystyrene developed intestinal inflammation, oxidative stress, and disorders of both metabolome and microbiome [3]. Particle shape mattered independently: fibers and fragments accumulated in the zebrafish gut more than beads and produced greater community disruption [4]. The same pattern of decreased richness, has since been reported in polyethylene-fed mice [19-20], PVC-fed mice [21], PS/NP co-exposure mice [11], discus fish [22], gilthead seabream [23], juvenile large yellow croaker [24], Chinese mitten crab [25], marine medaka [26], and multiple invertebrates [27, 28]. Ambient-exposure evidence follows the same direction: wild seabirds carrying environmentally realistic plastic burdens show gut microbiome shifts relative to less-exposed conspecifics [29].

Reviews consolidating this literature reach the same qualitative conclusion: MP/NP exposure across taxa produces reproducible microbial community disturbance [30-34, 35]. Where the studies converge is on direction. Where they diverge is on which specific taxa move. That is the second layer of the story.

2. Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, and the phylum-level rebalancing

The Firmicutes-to-Bacteroidetes (F/B) ratio is the crudest possible summary of a microbiome. It is also the most reported. Across polymer types, most rodent studies show F/B moving after chronic microplastic exposure, though the direction depends on polymer, dose, particle size, and background diet.

Polystyrene microplastics in mice have been variously reported to lower Firmicutes and increase Bacteroidetes [1-2], to increase Firmicutes and decrease Bacteroidetes [19], and to reshape the ratio in a size-dependent manner [36]. Polyethylene at 6 or 60 μg/day in mice increased Firmicutes and Bacteroidota abundance, reduced Actinobacteriota, and coincided with reduced colonic mucin and elevated inflammatory markers [12]. PVC microplastics in mice produced barrier dysfunction, F/B rebalancing, and metabolic shifts [21]. Continuous 90-day oral exposure to micro- and nanoplastics produced dysbiosis, barrier damage, and neurological effects in mice [37].

In humans and human-derived systems the picture is early but pointing in the same direction. In the SHIME infant gut model, polyethylene microplastic exposure altered Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes proportions and reduced short-chain fatty acid production over a two-week fermentation [38]. In a pilot study of Xiamen preschool children, higher fecal microplastic loads were associated with reduced Bacteroidota, increased Firmicutes, and shifts in genera implicated in inflammatory bowel disease [39]. In adults with IBD, higher fecal microplastic concentrations correlated with disease status, though whether that reflects consequence, cause, or shared exposure to plastic-heavy diet remains unresolved [40]. In simulated adult human colon systems fed PET microplastics, community composition shifted at the family and genus level within 72 hours [41-42].

The takeaway is not "F/B goes up" or "F/B goes down." It is that a coarse structural feature that is normally stable within an individual moves reliably enough to detect, using experimental doses that are not always defensible as human-realistic.

3. Akkermansia muciniphila and the mucin-degrading niche

Because plastic particles interact with the intestinal mucus layer, the mucin-degrading niche is one of the first places to look for a specific taxonomic signal. And Akkermansia muciniphila is its best-studied resident.

The direction of Akkermansia response to plastic is not uniform. In an in vitro model of human colon fed PET microplastics, Akkermansia was enriched after simulated gastrointestinal digestion, plausibly because mucin turnover shifted in a way that favored mucin degraders [42]. In several mouse studies of polystyrene, Akkermansia has been reported to decrease or become functionally impaired, particularly in models pairing MP exposure with high-fat diet, radiation, or DSS-induced colitis [43-45]. In a low-dose polystyrene MASLD model, Akkermansia abundance dropped and butyrate-producing genera were suppressed, coinciding with worsened liver steatosis [43]. In a comparison of pristine versus UV-aged polyethylene, aged particles produced deeper microbial metabolic dysfunction, including loss of Akkermansia, than pristine particles [46].

Rescue studies point the other way. Cyanidin-3-O-glucoside, EGCG, DHA-enriched phosphatidylserine, Bifidobacterium breve M-16V, and probiotic co-administration have each partially restored Akkermansia and other beneficial taxa in mouse MP models, and each has been paired with reduced downstream neurologic, reproductive, or immune damage [47-51]. Intergenerational nanoplastic exposure in mice (i.e., dosing dams and reading offspring) produced dysfunctional Akkermansia populations and neurotoxicity in F1 pups, an effect the authors mapped through vertical microbial transmission [52].

Akkermansia is not the only taxon of interest. Faecal genera such as Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Bacteroides, Prevotella, and Blautia recur across studies, with directions that depend on species, dose, and polymer [23, 53-54]. But the mucin-degrading niche is a useful pointer because it sits at the intersection of the microbiome and the barrier; the two systems this article is trying to relate.

4. Short-chain fatty acids and metabolic outputs

If plastic exposure only shifted 16S profiles, it would be a taxonomic curiosity. What makes the microbiome a candidate mediator of downstream effects is that many of the shifts recorded so far coincide with measurable changes in microbial metabolic output, most reproducibly, short-chain fatty acids.

In the polyethylene mouse work referenced above, MP-exposed animals showed decreased colonic SCFAs alongside dysbiosis and reduced mucin [12]. Continuous oral MP/NP exposure lowered SCFA-producing genera and cecal SCFA concentrations in parallel with barrier damage and behavioral change [37]. PVC microplastics reduced butyrate and propionate in mouse cecum, alongside shifts in bile acid and amino acid metabolism [21]. PS-NP in mice produced systematic toxicity that included suppressed SCFA output and reduced butyrate-producing Firmicutes [53]. In the infant SHIME gut model, polyethylene exposure lowered acetate, propionate, and butyrate within a 14-day fermentation window, with the reduction most pronounced in the descending colon compartment [38]. In simulated adult human colon fed PET, both community composition and SCFA output shifted, with propionate more affected than acetate [41].

Metabolomic studies extend the picture beyond SCFAs. Bile acid dysregulation, aromatic amino acid catabolism, and lipid intermediates change reproducibly in MP-exposed rodents [3, 55-57]. In zebrafish larvae, polystyrene MP exposure altered pathways for glycerophospholipid, sphingolipid, and amino acid metabolism [55,58]. In mice, polystyrene MP disrupted the gut-liver axis, elevated systemic uric acid, and shifted purine metabolism [57]. These are the kinds of second-order signals that a diversity index alone would not catch, and they are the ones most likely to matter clinically if the exposure is chronic.

5. Barrier crosstalk: mucus, tight junctions, and the intestinal epithelium

The microbiome does not live in the lumen alone. It lives against a mucus layer, above an epithelium, over an immune cell substrate. Plastic exposure affects all four compartments and it is not always easy to separate microbial effects from barrier effects. The two are coupled.

Multiple studies converge on reduced goblet cell density and thinner mucus after chronic MP exposure [1,12,59]. Tight junction proteins (ZO-1, occludin, claudins) fall in most rodent studies of PS, PE, PVC, and PET at doses ranging from environmentally relevant to substantially elevated [11,13,21,60]. Reactive oxygen species and epithelial apoptosis rise in intestinal segments where particle burden is highest [11,13]. Downstream of ROS, a consistent NF-κB/NLRP3/IL-1β signaling axis has been traced through duodenal and colonic epithelium in PS-NP and PS-MP models [61-62], and environmentally relevant PS-NP concentrations induce Crohn's ileitis-like features through intestinal epithelial cell necroptosis in a surface-charge-dependent manner [63]. The necroptotic branch (RIP1/RIP3/MLKL) has also been demonstrated in other MP-exposed tissues [64]. Ingested nano- and micro-sized polystyrene has been shown to accumulate in intestinal tissue itself, crossing the epithelial layer into the lamina propria in mice [65-66]. In animals with pre-existing intestinal inflammation, polystyrene exposure worsens the injury. DSS colitis in mice becomes more severe on top of PS exposure [45], and radiation-induced intestinal injury is aggravated [44]. An independent lab has reported that MP consumption alone induces an inflammatory transcriptional signature in the colon and prolongs the course of a viral arthritis [67].

Two mechanistic reviews formalize what these individual studies collectively suggest. The epithelial barrier hypothesis frames the mucosal barrier as the interface where environmental exposures meet microbial ecology, and identifies plastic particles as one of several barrier-active pollutants [7,68]. A more targeted review of MP/NP interaction with the intestinal barrier and microbiome makes the case that dysbiosis and barrier dysfunction are best understood as a coupled endpoint, not two separate ones [69]. Multi-omic dissection of NP exposure in the gut has surfaced STAT1 signaling as a specific pathway coupling barrier disruption to downstream transcriptional programs [70].

A key point for downstream reasoning: once the barrier is compromised, translocation of endotoxin (LPS), of live bacteria, and of the particles themselves becomes possible as size decreases. That is the bridge from "microbiome perturbation in the gut" to "systemic effects elsewhere."

6. Gut–liver axis

The gut and liver share a blood supply the portal vein, and this makes the liver the first solid organ downstream of any intestinal disturbance.

Polystyrene MP-fed mice consistently show hepatic lipid accumulation, elevated transaminases, and altered bile acid pools alongside gut dysbiosis [2,56-57,71]. Cross-polymer replication of the gut-liver signal is available for polyethylene, which reproduces the dysbiosis-to-liver injury sequence through a TLR2/NF-κB/NLRP3 axis in mice [72], and for polystyrene nanoplastics acting on the gut-liver axis through the same NF-κB/NLRP3 signaling family [73]. Mechanistic follow-up in human liver cells (HepG2) has traced PS-NP-driven mitochondrial injury through ROS-DRP1 interactions, providing a cell-level counterpart to the animal phenotype [74]. In a low-dose PS-MP model layered onto a high-fat diet, MP exposure increased susceptibility to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), an effect the authors traced to dysbiosis-driven bile acid remodeling and Akkermansia loss [43]. Perinatal PS-MP exposure in dams altered offspring hepatic metabolism and gut microbiota into adulthood [75]. In juvenile mice, PS-NP disrupted intestinal barrier integrity and hepatic function together, with size-dependent effects [76]. Cross-organ effects reach further: MP/NP exposure in mice produced hematopoietic damage through gut-microbiota crosstalk with liver and marrow signaling [60], with a more recent mechanistic dissection tracing microplastic-driven suppression of hematopoietic stem cell self-renewal through a gut microbiota-hypoxanthine-Wnt axis [77]. Fecal microbiota transplantation from MP-exposed donors has been shown to transfer testicular pathology to recipient mice, one of the few explicit causal demonstrations that dysbiosis mediates a distal-organ MP effect [78], and PS-MP exposure impaired glucose homeostasis and induced insulin resistance in a pattern the authors attributed to microbial dysbiosis and low-grade endotoxemia [54]. Separate mouse studies link PS-MP ingestion to microbiota-driven adipogenesis and boosted fatty acid synthesis [79] and to a broader cardiometabolic phenotype after chronic bead exposure [80].

Photoaged polyamide microplastics enhanced adverse effects on fish intestinal health and metabolism [81], indicating that particle history shapes gut-liver readouts. In humans, microplastics have been detected in gallstones, where they form large heteroaggregates with cholesterol; an observation consistent with, though not yet mechanistically tied to, the gut-liver-biliary flux described in animal work [82]. The gut-liver signal is one of the strongest in the animal literature. Whether it maps onto human liver disease at real-world exposure is unknown; the exposures used are almost universally higher than best current human intake estimates.

7. Gut–brain axis

The gut-brain axis is a more speculative but well-populated branch of the MP/NP microbiome literature. The proposition is straightforward: if the microbiome shifts and if microbially derived metabolites reach the brain (directly or via vagal afferents), then microbiome-mediated behavioral or cognitive effects should be visible after MP exposure. In animals, they are.

Polystyrene nanoplastic exposure in zebrafish dysregulated the brain-intestine-microbiota axis, altered neurotransmitter levels, and produced measurable behavioral changes [83]. In mice, PS-MP exposure impaired hippocampus-dependent learning and memory [84]. Oral feeding of nanoplastics affected mouse brain function through macrophage IL-1 signaling in the intestine, a specific mechanism linking gut immune response to central effects [85]. The gut-brain axis has been implicated in PS-NP-induced neurotoxicity through reprogramming of gut microbiota and metabolism [86]. PS micro- and nanoparticles induced anxiety-like behavior alongside dysbiosis in mice [87]. Oxidized versus unmodified polyethylene MP-induced neurotoxicity in mice differed in a way that traced back to differential microbiota effects [88]. Discus fish exposed to MP/NP developed neurobehavioral toxicity and gut dysbiosis in parallel [22]. Intergenerational polystyrene nanoplastic exposure in mice transferred neurotoxicity to offspring, mediated by dysfunctional maternal Akkermansia populations [52]. Reviews consolidating this literature argue that the gut-brain axis is a plausible route for MP/NP effects on the central nervous system [31,89-91].

Mechanistic reviews of MP/NP effects on the central nervous system align with these primary studies [91]. The individual experiments are compelling. The extrapolation to humans is not yet defensible; behavioral endpoints require conservative interpretation, and the doses remain high.

8. Plastisphere: microbes on the particle, not around it

The last mechanistic domain is often left out of gut-focused reviews. It matters because it changes what "exposure" means.

Plastic surfaces in the environment recruit and hold a distinctive microbial biofilm, called the plastisphere [15,92-93]. Community composition on plastic differs from surrounding water, sediment, or soil, and the difference persists as particles age and weather [8,94-95]. Plastispheres selectively enrich for certain bacterial families, including some human and animal pathogens [16,96-98], and they concentrate antibiotic resistance genes at higher levels than surrounding material and act as substrates for horizontal transfer of those genes between the plastisphere and its neighbors [14,99-100]. In agricultural settings, plastic mulch and its fragmentation products have been proposed as vectors for delivering plant, animal, and potentially human pathogens onto crops [96].

The gut implication is straightforward. Particles that arrive in food or water do not arrive sterile. They arrive with an adherent community that includes taxa the resident microbiome has not encountered on the same substrate. What that community does after ingestion, such as whether it colonizes, is displaced, or interacts transiently with resident bacteria, is only beginning to be studied. Recent work using intestinal MP retention models shows that surface-associated colonization on retained particles reshapes local microbial ecology in ways that go beyond taxonomic reshuffling [101]. In the SHIME simulator, MP toxicity on gut microbiota and intestinal cells has been documented for pristine polymers, but the plastisphere layer adds a variable that most published simulator work does not control for [102]. Aged microplastics carrying antibiotics such as roxithromycin altered fish gut microbiome and resistome differently than either alone, in a metagenomic study [103].

For a topic that is often framed as an inert-particle problem, the plastisphere is a reminder that plastics are also selective microbial habitats, and that habitat travels with them into the gut.

Human evidence

Setting the animal and in vitro literature aside, what has been shown in humans?

Fecal microplastic-microbiome correlations. In a case-control study of 50 individuals, fecal microplastic concentrations were significantly higher in patients with inflammatory bowel disease than in healthy controls, and the difference correlated with disease severity [40]. This is correlational; whether IBD predisposes to microplastic retention (via prolonged transit, altered mucus) or plastic exposure predisposes to IBD (via barrier disruption) cannot be resolved from a cross-sectional design. A dedicated review of MP and engineered nanomaterial effects on IBD reaches broadly the same qualitative conclusion [104], and a formal methodological critique of the flagship IBD-microplastic paper (with the authors' rebuttal) flags real analytical uncertainties in fecal MP quantification that any interpretation has to sit alongside [105-106].

Preschool children. In a pilot study of Xiamen preschoolers, fecal microplastic burden segregated children into higher and lower exposure groups whose gut microbiota compositions differed significantly, with genera associated with intestinal inflammation enriched in the higher-exposure group [39].

Placenta and meconium. Microplastics have been detected in both placenta and meconium samples, and their presence correlated with shifts in placental and neonatal microbial communities; the first evidence in humans of a microplastic-microbiome relationship at the fetal interface [107]. In a separate study using paper cup-derived particles, placental and fetal enrichment was documented with implications for metabolic development [108].

Breast milk. Microplastic detection in human breast milk has been associated with changes in the human milk microbiota, though the sample sizes are small and analytical methods still developing [109].

Occupational and geographical contrasts. A rare occupational study of workers with elevated aerosol MP exposure documented both nasal and intestinal microbiota shifts compared to matched controls [110], and a geographical comparison of Indonesian coastal versus highland populations found detectable plastic-degrading genes in the gut microbiomes of the higher-exposure group [111].

Simulated human digestion.In vitro models using human fecal inocula (SHIME, SIMGI) exposed to polyethylene, PET, PLA, and PVC microplastics show reproducible shifts in community composition and short-chain fatty acid production across polymer types [38,41-42,112-113].

Pregnancy and early childhood. A systematic review synthesizing available human and near-human evidence on MP exposure during pregnancy and early childhood concluded that the biological plausibility for adverse effects is strong but that human-outcome data remain scarce [114-116]. In animal work directly probing the mother-offspring axis, maternal PS-MP exposure during gestation and lactation altered offspring metabolic homeostasis and gut microbiota structure [75], and a gut-mammary axis for PS-MP toxicity has been proposed [117].

The overall pattern in humans is small studies, mostly correlational, mostly at the pilot stage. They are consistent with the animal literature. They do not establish causation.

Methodological limitations

Any careful reader will notice recurring problems in this field.

Dose. The vast majority of rodent studies use MP doses that translate to milligrams per kilogram body weight per day. Best current human intake estimates from food, water, and inhalation are in the micrograms-per-day range. Some studies use environmentally relevant concentrations for aquatic organisms and see effects; most mammalian mechanistic work does not [6,30,118]. The gap between experimental dose and human exposure is the single largest translational limitation of the field. A small but growing subset of the mammalian literature (using large PS-MPs at environmentally relevant chronic doses [119], environmentally relevant MP concentrations in a cholestasis/bile-acid model [120], and environmentally relevant concentrations across aquatic biota [121]) has begun to close that gap, though the phenotypes those studies elicit are more subtle than the high-dose norm.

Particle type and provenance. Most published work uses monodisperse commercial polystyrene beads. Real-world exposure is heterogeneous, such as polyethylene, PET, PVC, polypropylene, mixed shapes, weathered, biofilm-coated. Effects are polymer-dependent [12,2141], size-dependent [23,36], shape-dependent [4], and aging-dependent [46,81]. A monodisperse PS bead is a useful reductionist tool. It is not a stand-in for exposure.

Digestion transforms the particle. Passing microplastics through simulated gastric and small-intestinal conditions changes their size distribution, surface chemistry, and toxicological profile [122-124]. Studies that dose intact commercial beads and read out downstream effects are measuring something different from what a real human intestine would encounter.

Measurement. Fecal microplastic quantification is analytically demanding. Nile Red staining, FTIR, Raman, and pyrolysis-GC/MS each have different lower size limits and polymer specificities. Cross-study comparison is fraught. Some of the human correlations reported to date rest on measurements at the edge of what current methods can reliably do.

In vitro caveats. SHIME, SIMGI, and related in vitro fermentation systems are useful for isolating microbial responses but strip out host-microbiome feedback, mucosal immunity, and epithelial regeneration.

Null results exist and deserve weight. Not every exposure paradigm produces damage. Rainbow trout fed polystyrene microplastics maintain intestinal transport and barrier functions across the tested exposure window [125], a reminder that species, dose, particle, and endpoint choice all shape whether a signal appears.

Additives and sorbed contaminants. Microplastics release phthalates and other additives in the gut, and adsorb and release environmental contaminants and antibiotics [126-133]. A study that reads out microbiome effects of an MP exposure may be measuring the combined effect of the polymer, its plasticizers, and its cargo, not the polymer alone.

Two broader syntheses frame these limitations for downstream reasoning: a pharmacokinetic integration of the human-health literature [134], and a recent human-exposure risk review that catalogs the same measurement and dose uncertainties from a public-health angle [135].

None of these limitations invalidates the field. They set the terms on which its findings should be interpreted.

Synthesis

Stepping back, the microbiome evidence for MP/NP effects has the shape of a maturing field that is broadly consistent internally, still weakly connected to human outcomes, and pointed at a small number of specific mechanisms that are worth continued study.

The reproducible core is this. In rodents and other mammals dosed orally with microplastics or nanoplastics across polymer types, gut microbial community structure shifts. The direction of specific taxonomic changes varies with polymer, dose, size, and background. Coupled to those shifts are changes in short-chain fatty acid output, bile acid metabolism, mucus layer integrity, tight junction expression, and local intestinal immune signaling. Downstream of the barrier, effects propagate through the gut-liver axis into hepatic lipid and glucose metabolism, and through the gut-brain axis into behavioral and neurologic endpoints. In humans, small cross-sectional and pilot studies show microbiome differences correlated with fecal microplastic burden, most notably in IBD patients and preschool children, and microplastics have been detected in placenta, meconium, and breast milk with community-level correlations. In vitro simulators of human digestion reproduce the animal pattern.

The most defensible statement is this: at the doses used in most of the mechanistic literature, plastic exposure reshapes the gut microbiome in ways that would matter clinically if they occurred at chronic human intake. Whether they do is not yet answered. That is the honest gap.

Two secondary conclusions follow. First, the particle is not always the whole exposure. Additives, sorbed contaminants, and plastisphere-associated microbes all travel with the polymer, and studies that treat the polymer as inert underestimate what a real ingestion event delivers. Second, the barrier and the microbiome are one system, not two. Interventions that stabilize the mucus layer and the mucin-degrading niche are likely to matter more than any single-taxon target.

Where this leaves us

The gut microbiome is one of the more sensitive endpoints for plastic exposure. It is also one of the earliest to move. In every experimental system where researchers have looked carefully (mouse, rat, zebrafish, invertebrate, in vitro simulator, and small human cohort) microbial community structure and function shift after microplastic contact. The mechanistic evidence for how that happens, through mucus disruption, epithelial barrier damage, altered SCFA production, and coupled changes in host metabolism and immunity, is coherent across polymers and models.

The remaining uncertainty is about human dose. The signals the field has documented are strongest at exposures higher than best current estimates of daily human intake. Whether they operate, more subtly, at real-world dose is the question the next decade of work will need to answer.

Winnow's own work sits upstream of this question. Our probiotic strains have been shown in laboratory testing to bind micro- and nanoplastics. That is a narrow intervention point. It is also, given what the microbiome evidence suggests, a defensible one.

Sources

[1] Jin, Y., Lu, L., Tu, W., Luo, T. & Fu, Z. Impacts of polystyrene microplastic on the gut barrier, microbiota and metabolism of mice. Sci. Total Environ. 649, 308–317 (2019). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30176444/

[2] Lu, L., Wan, Z., Luo, T., Fu, Z. & Jin, Y. Polystyrene microplastics induce gut microbiota dysbiosis and hepatic lipid metabolism disorder in mice. Sci. Total Environ. 631, 449–458 (2018). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29529433/

[3] Qiao, R. et al. Microplastics induce intestinal inflammation, oxidative stress, and disorders of metabolome and microbiome in zebrafish. Sci. Total Environ. 662, 246–253 (2019). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30690359/

[4] Qiao, R. et al. Accumulation of different shapes of microplastics initiates intestinal injury and gut microbiota dysbiosis in the gut of zebrafish. Chemosphere 236, 124334 (2019). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31310986/

[5] Jin, Y. et al. Polystyrene microplastics induce microbiota dysbiosis and inflammation in the gut of adult zebrafish. Environ. Pollut. 235, 322–329 (2018). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29304465/

[6] Lear, G. et al. Plastics and the microbiome: impacts and solutions. Environ. Microbiome 16, 2 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33902756/

[7] Sozener, Z. C. et al. Epithelial barrier hypothesis: Effect of the external exposome on the microbiome and epithelial barriers in allergic disease. Allergy 77, 1418–1449 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35108405/

[8] Yang, Y., Liu, W., Zhang, Z., Grossart, H.-P. & Gadd, G. M. Microplastics provide new microbial niches in aquatic environments. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 104, 6501–6511 (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32500269/

[9] Lu, L. et al. Interaction between microplastics and microorganism as well as gut microbiota: A consideration on environmental animal and human health. Sci. Total Environ. 667, 94–100 (2019). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30826685/

[10] Fackelmann, G. & Sommer, S. Microplastics and the gut microbiome: How chronically exposed species may suffer from gut dysbiosis. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 143, 193–203 (2019). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31789155/

[11] Liang, B. et al. Underestimated health risks: polystyrene micro- and nanoplastics jointly induce intestinal barrier dysfunction by ROS-mediated epithelial cell apoptosis. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 18, 20 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34098985/

[12] Sun, H., Chen, N., Yang, X., Xia, Y. & Wu, D. Effects induced by polyethylene microplastics oral exposure on colon mucin release, inflammation, gut microflora composition and metabolism in mice. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 220, 112340 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34015635/

[13] Qiao, J. et al. Perturbation of gut microbiota plays an important role in micro/nanoplastics-induced gut barrier dysfunction. Nanoscale 13, 8806–8816 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33904557/

[14] Wang, J. et al. Evidence of selective enrichment of bacterial assemblages and antibiotic resistant genes by microplastics in urban rivers. Water Res. 183, 116113 (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32668354/

[15] Li, C. et al. The ecology of the plastisphere: Microbial composition, function, assembly, and network in the freshwater and seawater ecosystems. Water Res. 202, 117428 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34303166/

[16] Gkoutselis, G. et al. Microplastics accumulate fungal pathogens in terrestrial ecosystems. Sci. Rep. 11, 13214 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34267241/

[17] Yong, C. Q. Y., Valiyaveetill, S. & Tang, B. L. Toxicity of Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Mammalian Systems. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Heal. 17, 1509 (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32111046/

[18] Paul, M. B. et al. Micro- and nanoplastics – current state of knowledge with the focus on oral uptake and toxicity. Nanoscale Adv. 2, 4350–4367 (2020).

[19] Li, B. et al. Polyethylene microplastics affect the distribution of gut microbiota and inflammation development in mice. Chemosphere 244, 125492 (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31809927/

[20] Djouina, M. et al. Oral exposure to polyethylene microplastics alters gut morphology, immune response, and microbiota composition in mice. Environ. Res. 212, 113230 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35398082/

[21] Chen, X. et al. Polyvinyl chloride microplastics induced gut barrier dysfunction, microbiota dysbiosis and metabolism disorder in adult mice. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 241, 113809 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36068740/

[22] Huang, J.-N. et al. Micro/nano-plastics cause neurobehavioral toxicity in discus fish (Symphysodon aequifasciatus): Insight from brain-gut-microbiota axis. J. Hazard. Mater. 421, 126830 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34396975/

[23] Zhang, X. et al. Size-dependent adverse effects of microplastics on intestinal microbiota and metabolic homeostasis in the marine medaka (Oryzias melastigma). Environ. Int. 151, 106452 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33639345/

[24] Gu, H. et al. Nanoplastics impair the intestinal health of the juvenile large yellow croaker Larimichthys crocea. J. Hazard. Mater. 397, 122773 (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32361245/

[25] Liu, Z. et al. Effects of microplastics on the innate immunity and intestinal microflora of juvenile Eriocheir sinensis. Sci. Total Environ. 685, 836–846 (2019). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31247433/

[26] Kang, H.-M. et al. Different effects of nano- and microplastics on oxidative status and gut microbiota in the marine medaka Oryzias melastigma. J. Hazard. Mater. 405, 124207 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33199151/

[27] Huang, J.-N. et al. Exposure to microplastics impairs digestive performance, stimulates immune response and induces microbiota dysbiosis in the gut of juvenile guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Sci. Total Environ. 733, 138929 (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32466972/

[28] Wang, H.-T. et al. Exposure to microplastics lowers arsenic accumulation and alters gut bacterial communities of earthworm Metaphire californica. Environ. Pollut. 251, 110–116 (2019). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31071627/

[29] Fackelmann, G. et al. Current levels of microplastic pollution impact wild seabird gut microbiomes. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 7, 698–706 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36973353/

[30] Winiarska, E., Jutel, M. & Zemelka-Wiacek, M. The potential impact of nano- and microplastics on human health: Understanding human health risks. Environ. Res. 251, 118535 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38460665/

[31] Bora, S. S. et al. Microplastics and human health: unveiling the gut microbiome disruption and chronic disease risks. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 14, 1492759 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39669275/

[32] Covello, C., Vincenzo, F. D., Cammarota, G. & Pizzoferrato, M. Micro(nano)plastics and Their Potential Impact on Human Gut Health: A Narrative Review. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 46, 2658–2677 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38534784/

[33] Parsaeimehr, A., Miller, C. M. & Ozbay, G. Microplastics and their interactions with microbiota. Heliyon 9, e15104 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37089279/

[34] Niu, H. et al. Are Microplastics Toxic? A Review from Eco-Toxicity to Effects on the Gut Microbiota. Metabolites 13, 739 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37367897/

[35] Souza-Silva, T. G. de et al. Impact of microplastics on the intestinal microbiota: A systematic review of preclinical evidence. Life Sci. 294, 120366 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35101527/

[36] Zhang, Z. et al. Polystyrene microplastics induce size-dependent multi-organ damage in mice: Insights into gut microbiota and fecal metabolites. J. Hazard. Mater. 461, 132503 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37717443/

[37] Zhang, Z. et al. Continuous oral exposure to micro- and nanoplastics induced gut microbiota dysbiosis, intestinal barrier and immune dysfunction in adult mice. Environ. Int. 182, 108353 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38035535/

[38] Fournier, E. et al. Exposure to polyethylene microplastics alters immature gut microbiome in an infant in vitro gut model. J. Hazard. Mater. 443, 130383 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36444070/

[39] Ke, D. et al. Occurrence of microplastics and disturbance of gut microbiota: a pilot study of preschool children in Xiamen, China. eBioMedicine 97, 104828 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37837933/

[40] Yan, Z. et al. Analysis of Microplastics in Human Feces Reveals a Correlation between Fecal Microplastics and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Status. Environ. Sci. Technol. 56, 414–421 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34935363/

[41] Tamargo, A. et al. PET microplastics affect human gut microbiota communities during simulated gastrointestinal digestion, first evidence of plausible polymer biodegradation during human digestion. Sci. Rep. 12, 528 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35017590/

[42] Fournier, E. et al. Microplastics: What happens in the human digestive tract? First evidences in adults using in vitro gut models. J. Hazard. Mater. 442, 130010 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36182891/

[43] Wei, G. et al. Low-dose polystyrene microplastics exposure increases susceptibility to obesity-induced MASLD via disrupting intestinal barrier integrity and gut microbiota homeostasis. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 299, 118310 (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40403691/

[44] Chen, Y. et al. Polystyrene microplastics aggravate radiation-induced intestinal injury in mice. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 283, 116834 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39106569/

[45] Luo, T. et al. Polystyrene microplastics exacerbate experimental colitis in mice tightly associated with the occurrence of hepatic inflammation. Sci. Total Environ. 844, 156884 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35752249/

[46] Cui, H. et al. Comparative Analysis of Metabolic Dysfunctions Associated with Pristine and Aged Polyethylene Microplastic Exposure via the Liver-Gut Axis in Mice. ACS Nano 19, 14272–14283 (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40189833/

[47] Chen, W., Zheng, X., Yan, F., Xu, L. & Ye, X. Modulation of Gut Microbial Metabolism by Cyanidin-3‑O‑Glucoside in Mitigating Polystyrene-Induced Colonic Inflammation: Insights from 16S rRNA Sequencing and Metabolomics. J. Agric. Food Chem. 72, 7140–7154 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38518253/

[48] Yang, J.-Z. et al. Epigallocatechin-3-gallate ameliorates polystyrene microplastics-induced anxiety-like behavior in mice by modulating gut microbe homeostasis. Sci. Total Environ. 892, 164619 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37269995/

[49] Zhang, Y. et al. Efficacy of DHA-enriched phosphatidylserine and its underlying mechanism in alleviating polystyrene nanoplastics-induced hepatotoxicity in mice. Int. Immunopharmacol. 142, 113154 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39278057/

[50] Li, N., Wang, J., Liu, P., Li, J. & Xu, C. Multi-omics reveals that Bifidobacterium breve M-16V may alleviate the immune dysregulation caused by nanopolystyrene. Environ. Int. 163, 107191 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35325770/

[51] Zhang, Y., Hou, B., Liu, T., Wu, Y. & Wang, Z. Probiotics improve polystyrene microplastics-induced male reproductive toxicity in mice by alleviating inflammatory response. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 263, 115248 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37441951/

[52] Li, X. et al. Intergenerational neurotoxicity of polystyrene nanoplastics in offspring mice is mediated by dysfunctional microbe-gut-brain axis. Environ. Int. 192, 109026 (2024).

[53] Xu, D., Ma, Y., Han, X. & Chen, Y. Systematic toxicity evaluation of polystyrene nanoplastics on mice and molecular mechanism investigation about their internalization into Caco-2 cells. J. Hazard. Mater. 417, 126092 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34015712/

[54] Huang, D. et al. Polystyrene microplastic exposure induces insulin resistance in mice via dysbacteriosis and pro-inflammation. Sci. Total Environ. 838, 155937 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35588841/

[55] Wan, Z. et al. Effects of polystyrene microplastics on the composition of the microbiome and metabolism in larval zebrafish. Chemosphere 217, 646–658 (2019). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30448747/

[56] Feng, S. et al. Polystyrene microplastics alter the intestinal microbiota function and the hepatic metabolism status in marine medaka (Oryzias melastigma). Sci. Total Environ. 759, 143558 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33190902/

[57] Shi, C. et al. Disturbed Gut-Liver axis indicating oral exposure to polystyrene microplastic potentially increases the risk of insulin resistance. Environ. Int. 164, 107273 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35526298/

[58] Zhao, Y. et al. Effects of polyethylene microplastics on the microbiome and metabolism in larval zebrafish. Environ. Pollut. 282, 117039 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33838439/

[59] Xie, S. et al. Microplastics perturb colonic epithelial homeostasis associated with intestinal overproliferation, exacerbating the severity of colitis. Environ. Res. 217, 114861 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36410465/

[60] Jing, J. et al. Polystyrene micro-/nanoplastics induced hematopoietic damages via the crosstalk of gut microbiota, metabolites, and cytokines. Environ. Int. 161, 107131 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35149446/

[61] He, Y. et al. Polystyrene nanoplastics deteriorate LPS-modulated duodenal permeability and inflammation in mice via ROS drived-NF-κB/NLRP3 pathway. Chemosphere 307, 135662 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35830933/

[62] Zeng, G. et al. Polystyrene microplastic-induced oxidative stress triggers intestinal barrier dysfunction via the NF-κB/NLRP3/IL-1β/MCLK pathway. Environ. Pollut. 345, 123473 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38301820/

[63] Xu, D. et al. Differently surface-labeled polystyrene nanoplastics at an environmentally relevant concentration induced Crohn’s ileitis-like features via triggering intestinal epithelial cell necroptosis. Environ. Int. 176, 107968 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37201399/

[64] Meng, X. et al. Polystyrene microplastics induced oxidative stress, inflammation and necroptosis via NF-κB and RIP1/RIP3/MLKL pathway in chicken kidney. Toxicology 478, 153296 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36029908/

[65] Schwarzfischer, M. et al. Ingested nano- and microsized polystyrene particles surpass the intestinal barrier and accumulate in the body. NanoImpact 25, 100374 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35559880/

[66] Stock, V. et al. Uptake and effects of orally ingested polystyrene microplastic particles in vitro and in vivo. Arch. Toxicol. 93, 1817–1833 (2019). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31139862/

[67] Rawle, D. J. et al. Microplastic consumption induces inflammatory signatures in the colon and prolongs a viral arthritis. Sci. Total Environ. 809, 152212 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34890673/

[68] Hirt, N. & Body-Malapel, M. Immunotoxicity and intestinal effects of nano- and microplastics: a review of the literature. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 17, 57 (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33183327/

[69] Huang, Z., Weng, Y., Shen, Q., Zhao, Y. & Jin, Y. Microplastic: A potential threat to human and animal health by interfering with the intestinal barrier function and changing the intestinal microenvironment. Sci. Total Environ. 785, 147365 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33933760/

[70] Kim, D. H. et al. Transcriptomic and metabolomic analysis unveils nanoplastic-induced gut barrier dysfunction via STAT1/6 and ERK pathways. Environ. Res. 249, 118437 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38346486/

[71] Zheng, H., Wang, J., Wei, X., Chang, L. & Liu, S. Proinflammatory properties and lipid disturbance of polystyrene microplastics in the livers of mice with acute colitis. Sci. Total Environ. 750, 143085 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33182181/

[72] Xu, R., Cao, J., Lv, H., Geng, Y. & Guo, M. Polyethylene microplastics induced gut microbiota dysbiosis leading to liver injury via the TLR2/NF-κB/NLRP3 pathway in mice. Sci. Total Environ. 917, 170518 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38286276/

[73] Chen, X. et al. Polystyrene nanoplastics induce intestinal and hepatic inflammation through activation of NF-κB/NLRP3 pathways and related gut-liver axis in mice. Sci. Total Environ. 935, 173458 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38796000/

[74] Li, Y. et al. ROS and DRP1 interactions accelerate the mitochondrial injury induced by polystyrene nanoplastics in human liver HepG2 cells. Chem.-Biol. Interact. 379, 110502 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37084995/

[75] Luo, T. et al. Maternal Polystyrene Microplastic Exposure during Gestation and Lactation Altered Metabolic Homeostasis in the Dams and Their F1 and F2 Offspring. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 10978–10992 (2019). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31448906/

[76] Li, H. et al. Polystyrene microplastics exposure: Disruption of intestinal barrier integrity and hepatic function in infant mice. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 288, 117357 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39577047/

[77] Jiang, L. et al. Microplastics dampen the self-renewal of hematopoietic stem cells by disrupting the gut microbiota-hypoxanthine-Wnt axis. Cell Discov. 10, 35 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38548771/

[78] Wen, S. et al. Microplastics-perturbed gut microbiota triggered the testicular disorder in male mice: Via fecal microbiota transplantation. Environ. Pollut. 309, 119789 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35843456/

[79] Huang, H., Wei, F., Qiu, S., Xing, B. & Hou, J. Polystyrene microplastics trigger adiposity in mice by remodeling gut microbiota and boosting fatty acid synthesis. Sci. Total Environ. 890, 164297 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37211133/

[80] Zhao, J. et al. Polystyrene bead ingestion promotes adiposity and cardiometabolic disease in mice. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 232, 113239 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35093814/

[81] Zhang, X. et al. Photoaging enhanced the adverse effects of polyamide microplastics on the growth, intestinal health, and lipid absorption in developing zebrafish. Environ. Int. 158, 106922 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34628252/

[82] Zhang, D. et al. Microplastics are detected in human gallstones and have the ability to form large cholesterol-microplastic heteroaggregates. J. Hazard. Mater. 467, 133631 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38335610/

[83] Teng, M. et al. Polystyrene Nanoplastics Toxicity to Zebrafish: Dysregulation of the Brain–Intestine–Microbiota Axis. ACS Nano 16, 8190–8204 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35507640/

[84] Lee, C.-W. et al. Exposure to polystyrene microplastics impairs hippocampus-dependent learning and memory in mice. J. Hazard. Mater. 430, 128431 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35150991/

[85] Yang, Q. et al. Oral feeding of nanoplastics affects brain function of mice by inducing macrophage IL-1 signal in the intestine. Cell Rep. 42, 112346 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37022934/

[86] Kang, H. et al. The gut-brain axis involved in polystyrene nanoplastics-induced neurotoxicity via reprogramming the circadian rhythm-related pathways. J. Hazard. Mater. 458, 131949 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37392641/

[87] Chen, X. et al. Polystyrene micro- and nanoparticles exposure induced anxiety-like behaviors, gut microbiota dysbiosis and metabolism disorder in adult mice. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 259, 115000 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37210994/

[88] Wang, J. et al. Oxidized/unmodified-polyethylene microplastics neurotoxicity in mice: Perspective from microbiota-gut-brain axis. Environ. Int. 185, 108523 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38484610/

[89] Sofield, C. E., Anderton, R. S. & Gorecki, A. M. Mind over Microplastics: Exploring Microplastic-Induced Gut Disruption and Gut-Brain-Axis Consequences. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 46, 4186–4202 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38785524/

[90] Grodzicki, W., Dziendzikowska, K., Gromadzka-Ostrowska, J. & Kruszewski, M. Nanoplastic Impact on the Gut-Brain Axis: Current Knowledge and Future Directions. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22, 12795 (2021).

[91] Zheng, Y., Xu, S., Liu, J. & Liu, Z. The effects of micro- and nanoplastics on the central nervous system: A new threat to humanity? Toxicology 504, 153799 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38608860/

[92] Zhang, S.-J., Zeng, Y.-H., Zhu, J.-M., Cai, Z.-H. & Zhou, J. The structure and assembly mechanisms of plastisphere microbial community in natural marine environment. J. Hazard. Mater. 421, 126780 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34358974/

[93] Pippo, F. D. et al. Microplastic-associated biofilms in lentic Italian ecosystems. Water Res. 187, 116429 (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32961457/

[94] González-Pleiter, M. et al. Microbial colonizers of microplastics in an Arctic freshwater lake. Sci. Total Environ. 795, 148640 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34246139/

[95] Li, K., Jia, W., Xu, L., Zhang, M. & Huang, Y. The plastisphere of biodegradable and conventional microplastics from residues exhibit distinct microbial structure, network and function in plastic-mulching farmland. J. Hazard. Mater. 442, 130011 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36155295/

[96] Quilliam, R. S. et al. Microplastics in agriculture – a potential novel mechanism for the delivery of human pathogens onto crops. Front. Plant Sci. 14, 1152419 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37636119/

[97] Cheng, J. et al. Bacterial pathogens associated with the plastisphere of surgical face masks and their dispersion potential in the coastal marine environment. J. Hazard. Mater. 462, 132741 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37827107/

[98] Witsø, I. L. et al. Freshwater plastispheres as a vector for foodborne bacteria and viruses. Environ. Microbiol. 25, 2864–2881 (2023).

[99] Xiao, S. et al. Bacterial community succession and the enrichment of antibiotic resistance genes on microplastics in an oyster farm. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 194, 115402 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37611336/

[100] Yu, X. et al. Microplastics exacerbate co-occurrence and horizontal transfer of antibiotic resistance genes. J. Hazard. Mater. 451, 131130 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36878032/

[101] Yan, Z. et al. Intestinal Microplastic Retention Reshapes Gut Microbial Ecology through Surface-Associated Colonization and Additive Leaching. Environ. Sci. Technol. 60, 3974–3986 (2026). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41617658/

[102] Ren, X., Su, C., Zhu, Y., Fang, J. K.-H. & Woh, P. Y. Microplastic Toxicity on Gut Microbiota and Intestinal Cells: Evidence from the Simulator of the Human Intestinal Microbial Ecosystem (SHIME). Toxics 13, 1045 (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41441266/

[103] Zhang, P. et al. Metagenomic analysis explores the interaction of aged microplastics and roxithromycin on gut microbiota and antibiotic resistance genes of Carassius auratus. J. Hazard. Mater. 425, 127773 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34802820/

[104] Zhao, Y., Liu, S. & Xu, H. Effects of microplastic and engineered nanomaterials on inflammatory bowel disease: A review. Chemosphere 326, 138486 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36963581/

[105] Fujimoto, R., Harada, K. H. & Minata, M. Comment on “Analysis of Microplastics in Human Feces Reveals a Correlation between Fecal Microplastics and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Status.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 56, 12778–12778 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36001873/

[106] Yan, Z. et al. Response to Comment on “Analysis of Microplastics in Human Feces Reveals a Correlation between Fecal Microplastics and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Status.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 56, 12779–12780 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36001878/

[107] Liu, S. et al. The Association Between Microplastics and Microbiota in Placentas and Meconium: The First Evidence in Humans. Environ. Sci. Technol. 57, 17774–17785 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36269573/

[108] Chen, Q. et al. Placental and fetal enrichment of microplastics from disposable paper cups: implications for metabolic and reproductive health during pregnancy. J. Hazard. Mater. 478, 135527 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39151363/

[109] Saraluck, A. et al. Detection of Microplastics in Human Breast Milk and Its Association with Changes in Human Milk Bacterial Microbiota. J. Clin. Med. 13, 4029 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39064070/

[110] Zhang, X. et al. Effect of microplastics on nasal and intestinal microbiota of the high-exposure population. Front. Public Heal. 10, 1005535 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36388272/

[111] Nugrahapraja, H. et al. Effects of Microplastic on Human Gut Microbiome: Detection of Plastic-Degrading Genes in Human Gut Exposed to Microplastics—Preliminary Study. Environments 9, 140 (2022).

[112] Jiménez-Arroyo, C. et al. Simulated gastrointestinal digestion of polylactic acid (PLA) biodegradable microplastics and their interaction with the gut microbiota. Sci. Total Environ. 902, 166003 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37549707/

[113] Peng, Y., Lu, J., Fan, L., Dong, W. & Jiang, M. Simulated gastrointestinal digestion of two different sources of biodegradable microplastics and the influence on gut microbiota. Food Chem. Toxicol. 185, 114474 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38301992/

[114] Jinesh, S. & Aditi, P. Health Implications of Microplastic Exposure in Pregnancy and Early Childhood: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Women’s Heal. 17, 2805–2818 (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40917732/

[115] Sharma, R. K., Kumari, U. & Kumar, S. Impact of Microplastics on Pregnancy and Fetal Development: A Systematic Review. Cureus 16, e60712 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38903343/

[116] Zhang, R. et al. Polystyrene microplastics disturb maternal glucose homeostasis and induce adverse pregnancy outcomes. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 279, 116492 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38795415/

[117] Wang, Z. et al. Polystyrene microplastics induce potential toxicity through the gut-mammary axis. npj Sci. Food 9, 139 (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40659623/

[118] Fournier, E. et al. Microplastics in the human digestive environment: A focus on the potential and challenges facing in vitro gut model development. J. Hazard. Mater. 415, 125632 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33770682/

[119] Deng, Y. et al. Long-Term Exposure to Environmentally Relevant Doses of Large Polystyrene Microplastics Disturbs Lipid Homeostasis via Bowel Function Interference. Environ. Sci. Technol. 56, 15805–15817 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36282942/

[120] Wen, J. et al. Environmentally Relevant Concentrations of Microplastic Exposure Cause Cholestasis and Bile Acid Metabolism Dysregulation through a Gut-Liver Loop in Mice. Environ. Sci. Technol. 58, 1832–1841 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38230996/

[121] Sun, T., Zhan, J., Li, F., Ji, C. & Wu, H. Environmentally relevant concentrations of microplastics influence the locomotor activity of aquatic biota. J. Hazard. Mater. 414, 125581 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34030420/

[122] Stock, V. et al. Impact of artificial digestion on the sizes and shapes of microplastic particles. Food Chem. Toxicol. 135, 111010 (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31794801/

[123] Chen, Y. et al. Gastrointestinal digestion potentiates nanoplastic-induced intestinal barrier dysfunction and macrophage-driven inflammation. J. Hazard. Mater. 503, 141129 (2026). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41544594/

[124] Sofield, C. E. et al. Digestion of microplastics with simulated gastrointestinal conditions mitigates uptake by intestinal epithelial cells: Quantified by imaging flow cytometry. J. Hazard. Mater. 498, 139816 (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40945443/

[125] Ašmonaitė, G., Sundh, H., Asker, N. & Almroth, B. C. Rainbow Trout Maintain Intestinal Transport and Barrier Functions Following Exposure to Polystyrene Microplastics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 14392–14401 (2018). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30451503/

[126] Deng, Y. et al. Microplastics release phthalate esters and cause aggravated adverse effects in the mouse gut. Environ. Int. 143, 105916 (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32615348/

[127] Huang, W. et al. Influence of the co-exposure of microplastics and tetrabromobisphenol A on human gut: Simulation in vitro with human cell Caco-2 and gut microbiota. Sci. Total Environ. 778, 146264 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33725607/

[128] Yan, W., Hamid, N., Deng, S., Jia, P.-P. & Pei, D.-S. Individual and combined toxicogenetic effects of microplastics and heavy metals (Cd, Pb, and Zn) perturb gut microbiota homeostasis and gonadal development in marine medaka (Oryzias melastigma). J. Hazard. Mater. 397, 122795 (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32388101/

[129] Magara, G. et al. Effects of combined exposures of fluoranthene and polyethylene or polyhydroxybutyrate microplastics on oxidative stress biomarkers in the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis). J. Toxicol. Environ. Heal., Part A 82, 616–625 (2019). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31232673/

[130] Zhou, W. et al. Microplastics Aggravate the Bioaccumulation of Two Waterborne Veterinary Antibiotics in an Edible Bivalve Species: Potential Mechanisms and Implications for Human Health. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 8115–8122 (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32531169/

[131] Xu, K., Zhang, Y., Huang, Y. & Wang, J. Toxicological effects of microplastics and phenanthrene to zebrafish (Danio rerio). Sci. Total Environ. 757, 143730 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33277007/

[132] Jiang, P. et al. Effects of microplastics (MPs) and tributyltin (TBT) alone and in combination on bile acids and gut microbiota crosstalk in mice. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 220, 112345 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34020283/

[133] Yan, Z. et al. Phthalates released from microplastics inhibit microbial metabolic activity and induce different effects on intestinal luminal and mucosal microbiota. Environ. Pollut. 310, 119884 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35931388/

[134] Prata, J. C. Microplastics and human health: Integrating pharmacokinetics. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 1489–1511 (2023).

[135] Tang, K. H. D., Li, R., Li, Z. & Wang, D. Health risk of human exposure to microplastics: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 22, 1155–1183 (2024).

[136] Li, S., Keenan, J. I., Shaw, I. C. & Frizelle, F. A. Could Microplastics Be a Driver for Early Onset Colorectal Cancer? Cancers 15, 3323 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37444433/