Investigates microbiota differences in farmers exposed to pig farms, suggesting implications for health.
Pig farms with high animal density may increase opportunities for exposure to zoonotic pathogens, and occupational exposure has been associated with differences in the human oropharyngeal microbiota. This study investigates how occupational exposure in pig farms associated with the human oropharyngeal microbiome and examines microbial transmission across animals, environments, and humans within the One Health framework. We analyzed throat swabs from farmers, control populations, pigs, and environmental samples (feces, wastewater, and bioaerosols) using full‐length 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Sequencing of 77 samples yielded 3457 amplicon sequence variants (ASVs). Beta‐diversity analyses revealed distinct oropharyngeal microbiota profiles between farmers and controls ( p < 0.05), whereas alpha‐diversity indices were broadly comparable between the two groups. Network analysis revealed that farmers’ oropharyngeal bacterial communities were more interconnected, indicating higher statistical connectivity that was associated with occupational exposure. Differential abundance analysis using MaAsLin2 showed five enriched genera in farmers ( Neisseria , Veillonella , Alloprevotella , Actinobacillus , and Fusobacterium ) and three depleted ( Streptococcus , Oribacterium , and Gemella ; false discovery rate [FDR]‐adjusted q < 0.2). Zoonotic pathogens such as Streptococcus suis were identified in pig throat swabs, indicating the presence of microbes with potential relevance at the human–animal interface. These results suggest that chronic exposure to pig farms is associated with differences in the human oropharyngeal microbiome and with increased microbial overlap among animals, environments, and humans. By integrating human, animal, and multiple environmental sample types, this study provides novel One Health evidence linking occupational exposure to cross‐host microbial overlap and potential zoonotic relevance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: