hygiene hypothesis pronounce

• Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
• Biostatistics
• Environmental Health and Engineering
• Epidemiology
• Health Policy and Management
• Health, Behavior and Society
• International Health
• Mental Health
• Molecular Microbiology and Immunology
• Population, Family and Reproductive Health
• Program Finder
• Admissions Services
• Course Directory
• Academic Calendar
• Hybrid Campus
• Lecture Series
• Convocation
• Strategy and Development
• Implementation and Impact
• Integrity and Oversight
• In the School
• In the Field
• In Baltimore
• Resources for Practitioners
• Articles & News Releases
• In The News
• Statements & Announcements
• At a Glance
• Student Life
• Strategic Priorities
• Inclusion, Diversity, Anti-Racism, and Equity (IDARE)
• What is Public Health?

Is the Hygiene Hypothesis True?

Did Covid shutdowns stunt kids' immune systems?

Caitlin Rivers

The hygiene hypothesis is the idea that kids need to be exposed to germs in order to develop healthy immune systems. We know that many common viruses did not circulate as widely during the pandemic, thanks to social distancing, masking, and other COVID mitigation measures. Are there downsides to those missed infections? 

In this Q&A, Caitlin Rivers speaks with Marsha Wills-Karp, PhD, MHS , professor and chair of Environmental Health and Engineering , about the role of household microbiomes, birth, and vaccines in the development of kids’ immune systems—and whether early exposure really is the best medicine.

This Q&A is adapted from Rivers’ Substack blog, Force of Infection .

I think there’s some concern among parents who have heard about the hygiene hypothesis that there is a downside to all those stuffy noses that didn’t happen [during the COVID-19 pandemic]. Are there any upsides to viral infections? Do they help the immune system in some meaningful way?

I don’t think so.

You mentioned the hygiene hypothesis, which was postulated back in the ‘80s. German scientists noticed that families with fewer children tended to have more allergic disease. This was interpreted [to mean] that allergic disease was linked to experiencing fewer infections. I have explored this idea in my research for a couple of decades now.

This phenomenon has helped us to understand the immune system, but our interpretation of it has grown and expanded—particularly with respect to viruses. Almost no virus is protective against allergic disease or other immune diseases. In fact, infections with viruses mostly either contribute to the development of those diseases or worsen them.

The opposite is true of bacteria. There are good bacteria and there are bad bacteria. The good bacteria we call commensals . Our bodies actually have more bacterial cells than human cells. What we’ve learned over the years is that the association with family life and the environment probably has more to do with the microbiome. So one thing I would say is sanitizing every surface in your home to an extreme is probably not a good thing. Our research team showed in animals that sterile environments don’t allow the immune system to develop at all. We don’t want that.

What does contribute to the development of the immune system, if not exposure to viruses?

There are a number of factors that we’ve associated with the hygiene hypothesis over the last 20 years, and these exposures start very early in life. Cesarean sections, which do not allow the baby to travel through the birth canal and get exposed to the mother’s really healthy bacterial content, is a risk factor for many different immune diseases. Getting that early seeding with good bacteria is critical for setting up the child going forward. Breastfeeding also contributes to the development of a healthy immune system.

There are other factors. Our diets have changed dramatically over the years. We eat a lot of processed food that doesn’t have the normal components of a healthy microbiome, like fiber. These healthy bacteria in our gut need that fiber to maintain themselves. They not only are important for our immune system but they’re absolutely critical to us deriving calories and nutrients from our food. All these things contribute to a healthy child.

We’ve also noticed that people who live on farms have fewer of these diseases because they’re exposed to—for lack of a better term—the fecal material of animals. And what we have found is that it’s due to these commensal bacteria. That is one of the components that help us keep a healthy immune system. Most of us will probably not adopt farm life. But we can have a pet, we can have a dog.

I think all the pet lovers out there will be pleased to hear that.

There’s a lot of evidence that owning a pet in early childhood is very protective.

What about the idea that you need to be exposed to viruses in early life because if you get them as an adult, you’ll get more severely ill? We know that’s true for chickenpox, for example. Do you have any concerns about that?

We should rely on vaccines for those exposures because we can never predict who is going to be susceptible to severe illness, even in early childhood. If we look back before vaccines, children under 4 often succumbed to infections. I don’t think we want to return to that time in history.

Let me just give you one example. There’s a virus called RSV, it’s a respiratory virus. Almost all infants are positive for it by the age of 2. But those who get severe disease are more likely to develop allergic disease and other problems. So this idea that we must become infected with a pathogenic virus to be healthy is not a good one.

Even rhinovirus, which is the common cold, most people recover fine. But there’s a lot of evidence that for somebody who is allergic, rhinovirus exposures make them much worse. In fact, most allergic or asthmatic kids suffer through the winter months when these viruses are more common.

And that’s particularly salient because there is a lot of rhinovirus and enterovirus circulating right now.

From my point of view, right now, avoiding flu and COVID-19 is a priority. Those are not going to help you develop a healthy immune response, and in fact, they can do a lot of damage to the lungs during that critical developmental time. Data [show] that children that have more infections in the first 6 months to a year of life go on to have more problems.

It’s always surprising to me when I look at the data of the fraction of time that young children spend with these common colds—and this is pre-pandemic—it’s not uncommon for kids to be sick 50% of the time. That feels right as a parent, but it’s startling.

The other thing people don’t know is that the GI tract is where you get tolerized to all of your foods, allergens and things. Without those healthy bacteria in your gut, you can’t tolerate common allergens.

How does that relate to the guidance that’s changed over the years—that you should withhold peanuts in early life and now you’re supposed to offer them in early life?

The guidance to delay exposure to peanuts didn’t consider the fact that oral exposure to peanuts was not the only exposure kids were getting. There were peanut oils in all kinds of skin creams and other things. So kids got exposed through their skin, but they had no gut protection—and the GI tract is important for a tolerant system. If you have a healthy immune response, you get tolerized in early life.

This concept is a little bit different for those families who may already have a predisposition to allergies. But for the general public, exposure is key to protecting them in early life.

I think some parents look at the guidance that you should now offer peanuts in early life and say, “Are we not doing that with rhinovirus by masking kids or improving ventilation?” How should people think about the development of the immune system for food allergies compared to infections?

The thing about rhinoviruses is that after recovering, you’re not protected from the next infection. There is no real immune protection there. Most of us suffer from colds throughout our whole life. Like I said, bacterial exposure is what’s key to priming the immune response. 

Also, we forget that a lot of kids die from the flu. Unlike COVID-19, where younger kids are not quite as susceptible to severe illness, that’s not true for flu. RSV, too, can be quite severe in young children and older adults.

Caitlin Rivers, PhD, MPH , is a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and an assistant professor in Environmental Health and Engineering at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

RELATED: 

• Study Finds That Children’s Antibody Responses to COVID-19 Are Stronger Than Adults’
• Back to School: COVID, CDC Guidance, Monkeypox, and More
• A New Shot Prevents Serious Illness from RSV

Related Content

What is Public Mental Health?

A ‘Critical Pathogen’: The Rise of Drug-Resistant Fungal Diseases

What to Know About the Updated COVID Vaccine for Fall, Winter 2024–25

Why We’re Still Waiting for a Pandemic Treaty

Why COVID Surges in the Summer

• Daily Lessons
• Get your widget

How to pronounce hygiene hypothesis in English ( 1 out of 49 ):

Enabled javascript is required to listen to the english pronunciation of 'hygiene hypothesis'..

Definition:

Click on any word below to get its definition:, nearby words:, having trouble pronouncing 'hygiene hypothesis' learn how to pronounce one of the nearby words below:.

• hygroscopic
• hypothetical
• hypertension
• hypothalamus
• hypocritical
• hypothetically
• hypothesized

When you begin to speak English, it's essential to get used to the common sounds of the language, and the best way to do this is to check out the phonetics. Below is the UK transcription for 'hygiene hypothesis' :

• Modern IPA: hɑ́jʤɪjn hɑjpɔ́θəsɪs
• Traditional IPA: ˈhaɪʤiːn haɪˈpɒθəsɪs
• 5 syllables : "HY" + "jeen hy" + "POTH" + "uh" + "sis"

Test your pronunciation on words that have sound similarities with 'hygiene hypothesis' :

• hypothesize
• hopelessness

Tips to improve your English pronunciation:

Here are a few tips that should help you perfect your pronunciation of 'hygiene hypothesis' :.

• Sound it Out : Break down the word 'hygiene hypothesis' into its individual sounds "hy" + "jeen hy" + "poth" + "uh" + "sis". Say these sounds out loud, exaggerating them at first. Practice until you can consistently produce them clearly.
• Self-Record & Review : Record yourself saying 'hygiene hypothesis' in sentences. Listen back to identify areas for improvement.
• YouTube Pronunciation Guides : Search YouTube for how to pronounce 'hygiene hypothesis' in English .
• Pick Your Accent : Mixing multiple accents can be confusing, so pick one accent ( US or UK ) and stick to it for smoother learning.

Here are a few tips to level up your english pronunciation:

• Mimic the Experts : Immerse yourself in English by listening to audiobooks, podcasts, or movies with subtitles. Try shadowing—listen to a short sentence and repeat it immediately, mimicking the intonation and pronunciation.
• Become Your Own Pronunciation Coach : Record yourself speaking English and listen back. Identify areas for improvement, focusing on clarity, word stress, and intonation.
• Train Your Ear with Minimal Pairs : Practice minimal pairs (words that differ by only one sound, like ship vs. sheep ) to improve your ability to distinguish between similar sounds.
• Explore Online Resources : Websites & apps offer targeted pronunciation exercises. Explore YouTube channels dedicated to pronunciation, like Rachel's English and English with James for additional pronunciation practice and learning.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• Vaccines, Blood & Biologics
• Resources for You (Biologics)
• Consumers (Biologics)

Asthma: The Hygiene Hypothesis

What do clean houses have in common with childhood infections.

One of the many explanations for asthma being the most common chronic disease in the developed world is the “hygiene hypothesis.” This hypothesis suggests that the critical post-natal period of immune response is derailed by the extremely clean household environments often found in the developed world. In other words, the young child’s environment can be “too clean” to pose an effective challenge to a maturing immune system.

According to the “hygiene hypothesis,” the problem with extremely clean environments is that they fail to provide the necessary exposure to germs required to “educate” the immune system so it can learn to launch its defense responses to infectious organisms. Instead, its defense responses end up being so inadequate that they actually contribute to the development of asthma.

Scientists based this hypothesis in part on the observation that, before birth, the fetal immune system’s “default setting” is suppressed to prevent it from rejecting maternal tissue. Such a low default setting is necessary before birth—when the mother is providing the fetus with her own antibodies. But in the period immediately after birth the child’s own immune system must take over and learn how to fend for itself.

The “hygiene hypothesis” is supported by epidemiologic studies demonstrating that allergic diseases and asthma are more likely to occur when the incidence and levels of endotoxin (bacterial lipopolysaccharide, or LPS) in the home are low. LPS is a bacterial molecule that stimulates and educates the immune system by triggering signals through a molecular “switch” called TLR4, which is found on certain immune system cells.

The science behind the hygiene hypothesis

The Inflammatory Mechanisms Section of the Laboratory of Immunobiochemistry is working to better understand the hygiene hypothesis, by looking at the relationship between respiratory viruses and allergic diseases and asthma, and by studying the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in particular.

What does RSV have to do with the hygiene hypothesis?

• RSV is often the first viral pathogen encountered by infants.
• RSV pneumonia puts infants at higher risk for developing childhood asthma. (Although children may outgrow this type of asthma, it can account for clinic visits and missed school days.)
• RSV carries a molecule on its surface called the F protein, which flips the same immune system “switch” (TLR4) as do bacterial endotoxins.

It may seem obvious that, since both the RSV F protein and LPS signal through the same TLR4 “switch,” they both would educate the infant’s immune system in the same beneficial way. But that may not be the case.

The large population of bacteria that normally lives inside humans educates the growing immune system to respond using the TLR4 switch.  When this education is lacking or weak, the response to RSV by some critical cells in the immune system’s defense against infections—called “T-cells”—might inadvertently trigger asthma instead of protecting the infant and clearing the infection. How this happens is a mystery that we are trying to solve.

In order to determine RSV’s role in triggering asthma, our laboratory studied how RSV blocks T-cell proliferation.

Studying the effect of RSV on T-cells in the laboratory, however, has been very difficult. That’s because when RSV is put into the same culture as T-cells, it blocks them from multiplying as they would naturally do when they are stimulated. To get past this problem, most researchers kill RSV with ultraviolet light before adding the virus to T-cell cultures. However we did not have the option of killing the RSV because that would have prevented us from determining the virus’s role in triggering asthma.  

Our first major discovery was that RSV causes the release from certain immune system cells of signaling molecules called Type I and Type III interferons that can suppress T-cell proliferation (Journal of Virology 80:5032-5040; 2006).

The hygiene hypothesis suggests that a newborn baby’s immune system must be educated so it will function properly during infancy and the rest of life.  One of the key elements of this education is a switch on T cells called TLR4.  The bacterial protein LPS normally plays a key role by flipping that switch into the “on” position.

Prior research suggested that since RSV flips the TLR4 switch, RSV should “educate” the child’s immune system to defend against infections just like LPS does. 

But it turns out that RSV does not flip the TLR switch in the same way as LPS. This difference in switching on TLR, combined with other characteristics of RSV, can prevent proper education of the immune system. 

One difference in the way that RSV flips the TLR4 switch may be through the release of interferons, which suppresses the proliferation of T-cells.  We still do not know whether these interferons are part of the reason the immune system is not properly educated or simply an indicator of the problem. Therefore, we plan to continue our studies about how RSV can contribute to the development of asthma according to the hygiene hypothesis.

Further research

This finding that Type I and Type III interferons can mediate the suppression of T-cells caused by RSV generated two significant questions that our laboratory is now addressing:

• Interferons are important molecules that enhance inflammation, so why--in the context of RSV--do they suppress T-cells?
• Interferons are clearly not the only way RSV suppresses T-cells. What are the other mechanisms that may depend upon T-cells coming in direct contact and communicating with other immune cells?

Related Research

• Assessing the Mechanism of Immunotherapy for Allergy and Allergic Asthma: Effect of Viral Respiratory Infections on Pathogenesis and Clinical Course of Asthma and Allergy Ronald Rabin, MD

What Is the Hygiene Hypothesis?

Many parents believe that their children must be kept in an environment that is as clean as possible, but some research suggests that being exposed to what many would call unclean conditions is good for a child's immune system. Research has indicated that children who are kept in very clean environments have a higher rate of hay fever, asthma and a wide range of other conditions. This is what is called the hygiene hypothesis.

The hygiene hypothesis was first introduced in the late 1980s by David P. Strachan, a professor of epidemiology, in the British Medical Journal. Strachan found that children in larger households had fewer instances of hay fever because they are exposed to germs by older siblings. This finding led to further research that suggests a lack of early childhood exposure to less than pristine conditions can increase the individual's susceptibility to disease.

For example, in the late 1990s, Dr. Erika von Mutius, a health researcher, compared the rates of allergies and asthma in East Germany and West Germany, which unified in 1999. Her initial hypothesis was that East German children, who grew up in dirtier and generally less healthful conditions, would have more allergies and suffer more from asthma than their Western counterparts. However, her research found the opposite: children in the polluted areas of East Germany had lower allergic reactions and fewer cases of asthma than children in West Germany. 

Further research has found that children in developing areas of the world are less likely to develop allergies and asthma compared with children in the developed world. 

Building the immune system

The idea is simple. When babies are inside the womb they have a very weak immune system because they are given protection by their mother's antibodies. When they exit the womb, though, the immune system must start working for itself. For the immune system to work properly, it is thought that the child must be exposed to germs so that it has a chance to strengthen, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

The idea is similar to the training of a body builder. For a body builder to be able to lift heavy objects, the muscles must be trained by lifting heavier and heavier objects. If the body builder never trains, then he will be unable to lift a heavy object when asked. The same is thought to be true for the immune system. In able to fight off infection, the immune system must train by fighting off contaminants found in everyday life. Systems that aren't exposed to contaminants have trouble with the heavy lifting of fighting off infections.

Mutius hypothesized that the reason children who are not exposed to germs and bacteria are sicklier is due to how the human immune system evolved. She thinks there are two types of biological defenses. If one of the defense systems isn't trained or practiced enough to fight off illness, the other system overcompensates and creates an allergic reaction to harmless substances like pollen.

Research by other scientists has found similar results. Exposure to germs triggered an internal inflammatory response in children who were raised in cleaner environments, leading to ailments such as asthma, according to a 2002 article in Science magazine.

One researcher has personal experience has leads him to back the hygiene hypothesis. "I believe that there is a role in the development of a child's immunity exposure to various germs and a vast microbiome diversity," said Dr. Niket Sonpal, an assistant professor of clinical medicine at Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine, Harlem Campus. "I was born in India but moved to the U.S. and went to college in Virginia and medical school in Europe. I am sure that the vast change in environment has played a role in my immunity. How has it? I don't think we know just yet." 

In 1997, some began to question if there is a correlation between the hygiene hypothesis and vaccinations. The number of children getting vaccinations was going up, but so were the number of children afflicted with allergies, eczema and other problems. Could depriving the developing immune system of infections using vaccines cause the immune system to eventually attack itself and cause autoimmune diseases like asthma and diabetes? This is a highly contested issue. 

Three studies conducted in the 1990s showed that vaccines had no correlation with children developing allergies and other ailments later in life. In fact, vaccinations may help prevent asthma and other health problems other than the diseases they were intended to prevent, according to The National Center for Immunization Research and Surveillance . The idea that vaccinations can cause health problems does not consider the fact that children, whether vaccinated or not, are still exposed to pathogens that help build the immune system. These pathogens also have no relation to the diseases that the vaccines prevent. 

The conflict between cleanliness and exposure can leave parents feeling confused. There are many microbes that can make children very sick, such as such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), E.coli and salmonella. So cleaning the home is still very important. What should children be exposed to and what should they be protected from? 

The CDC recommends regularly cleaning and disinfecting surfaces in the home, especially when surfaces have been contaminated by fecal matter or meat or have come in contact with those who have a virus. Children are also encouraged, though, to play outside , even if they may get dirty in the process. This balancing act may prove to help children stay healthy while still developing a healthy immune system. 

Sonpal thinks that the healthy growth of the immune system isn't just about coming in contact with dirt. It also has to do with what foods are consumed, what kind of environments the person grows up in and intrinsic genetics coupled with physical activity levels. Harvard Medical School noted that getting plenty of sleep, avoiding cigarette smoke, drinking in moderation and controlling blood pressure also all play a part in a healthy immune system.

Additional Resources

• Clinical & Experimental Immunology: The 'Hygiene Hypothesis' for Autoimmune and Allergic Diseases: An Update
• Mayo Clinic: Early germ exposure prevents asthma?
• U.S. National Library of Medicine: The Hygiene Hypothesis and home hygiene

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

'Microbes of death' can reveal when a frozen body died, forensic scientists explain

Hospitalized patients with flu need Tamiflu the day they're admitted, CDC says

Easter Island's population never collapsed, but it did have contact with Native Americans, DNA study suggests

Most Popular

• 2 The Andromeda Galaxy glows rosy red in gorgeous new Hubble Telescope image
• 3 Amazingly simple discovery extends Li-ion battery lifespan by 50% — meaning you don't have to replace your gadgets as often
• 4 Watch an eel climb up its predator's digestive tract and wriggle to freedom through its gills
• 5 NASA spacecraft captures 1st photo of its giant solar sail while tumbling in space

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley Open Access Collection

Too clean, or not too clean: the Hygiene Hypothesis and home hygiene

Sf bloomfield.

* London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

R Stanwell-Smith

† Royal Institute of Public Health, London, UK

‡ Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Unilever, Bedford, UK

§ Consultant in Scientific Issues, Bridgnorth, Shropshire, UK

The ‘hygiene hypothesis’ as originally formulated by Strachan, proposes that a cause of the recent rapid rise in atopic disorders could be a lower incidence of infection in early childhood, transmitted by unhygienic contact with older siblings. Use of the term ‘hygiene hypothesis’ has led to several interpretations, some of which are not supported by a broader survey of the evidence. The increase in allergic disorders does not correlate with the decrease in infection with pathogenic organisms, nor can it be explained by changes in domestic hygiene. A consensus is beginning to develop round the view that more fundamental changes in lifestyle have led to decreased exposure to certain microbial or other species, such as helminths, that are important for the development of immunoregulatory mechanisms. Although this review concludes that the relationship of the hypothesis to hygiene practice is not proven, it lends strong support to initiatives seeking to improve hygiene practice. It would however be helpful if the hypothesis were renamed, e.g. as the ‘microbial exposure’ hypothesis, or ‘microbial deprivation’ hypothesis, as proposed for instance by Bjorksten. Avoiding the term ‘hygiene’ would help focus attention on determining the true impact of microbes on atopic diseases, while minimizing risks of discouraging good hygiene practice.

Introduction

When a disease, or group of diseases, rises rapidly without a specific explanation, it stimulates investigation to identify the cause, so that preventive measures can be devised. An example of this is the rise in the incidence and prevalence of atopic disorders that has occurred over the last 30–40 years.

Although genetic predisposition is a fundamental factor governing susceptibility to atopic disease, the rise in atopy has occurred within too short a time frame to be explained by a genetic shift in the population, thus pointing to environmental or lifestyle changes. Although some increase in exposure to allergens to sensitize and then trigger attacks has been observed, such as increased exposure to house dust mites in modern, centrally heated houses, these changes do not seem adequately to explain the rise. This has led to the search for other factors to explain increased phenotypic expression of atopic disease in genetically predisposed individuals.

The ‘hygiene hypothesis’ was first formulated in 1989 by an epidemiologist, Dr Strachan [ 1 ] who reported an inverse relationship between family size and development of atopic disorders, and proposed that a lower incidence of infection in early childhood, transmitted by unhygienic contact with older siblings or acquired pre-natally could be a cause of the rise in allergic diseases. Subsequently, as the concept was further explored by specialists in allergy and immunology, it evolved into the broader notion that declining microbial exposure is a major causative factor in the increasing incidence of atopy in recent years. A wide range of factors which might have resulted in altered microbial exposure have been examined such as clean water and food, sanitation, antibiotics and vaccines, birth practices, as well as incidental factors such as the move from farm to urban living.

Most recently, a further aspect of Strachan's hypothesis has received considerable attention, particularly from the media, namely his proposition that the reason why this key exposure no longer occurs, or occurs to an insufficient extent, is the trend not only towards smaller family sizes but also ‘improved household amenities and higher standards of personal cleanliness’– in effect, cleaner homes.

Until recently, discussion of the hypothesis has been relatively compartmentalized, with most research focusing on the nature of the possible link between atopy and microbial exposure. Research into other factors that could explain the atopy trends, such as changes in diet and other shifts in lifestyle have continued in parallel. It is only recently that infectious disease (ID) specialists have entered the debate, concerned that publicizing the idea that we might be ‘too clean’ could have a detrimental impact on the public's perception of ID risks in the home and elsewhere, and of the importance of controlling such risks.

In response to these latter concerns the International Scientific Forum on Home Hygiene ( www.ifh-homehygiene.org ) commissioned a review of the hypothesis, in order to consider the implications it might have for hygiene, particularly hygiene in the domestic setting. It sought to do this by addressing two distinct questions:

• How clear is the evidence of a causal link between a decline in microbial exposure and the recent rises in atopic disease?
• To what extent might cleaning and hygiene, as distinct from other influences on microbial exposure, be a significant factor?

This review is a summary of the main findings from this report together with more recently published data [ 2 ].

The rise in atopic disease

The rapid increase in allergic asthma and other atopic disorders in the industrialized world is usually considered to have started between 1960 and 1970 with progressive rises during the 1980s and ‘90 s, although Isolauri suggests that there has been a steady rise in sensitization to aeroallergens since the 1920s [ 3 ]. Asthma prevalence, for example, increased by about 1% a year from around 1980 [ 4 ]. Among children 5–18 years of age, the increase has predominantly been among allergic individuals [ 5 ] and recent UK studies confirm that atopic, rather than non-atopic, asthma is responsible for much of the rise [ 6 , 7 ]. A comparison of two British birth cohorts (1958 and 1970) showed increases from 3.1% to 6.4% for eczema and from 12% to 23.3% for hayfever at age 16 years.

Both incidence and prevalence of atopy generally remain much lower in many, but not all the developing regions of the world. The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) showed that the prevalence of self-reported asthma ranged from 2–3% in developing countries to 20–40% of the responding population of 13–14-year olds in industrialized countries, depending on the questionnaire used (written or video) [ 8 ]. The prevalence of other atopic disorders varied over a similarly wide range, with countries showing similar, but not identical rankings. Variations also appear between areas within countries.

The reunification of Germany provided some new insights into the influence of lifestyle on atopic disease within relatively homogeneous populations. Von Mutius et al. [ 9 ] showed that hayfever and atopic sensitization among children in the former East Germany both significantly increased between 1991–1992 and 1995–1996, raising the issue of ‘Western living’ influences on children, as previous studies had shown lower rates in East Germany compared with West Germany.

Some recent data suggests that the rise in incidence of atopic disease may be halting. A UK survey published in 2000 suggests that the number of new GP consultations for asthma is now falling, with declining reported episodes of asthma and acute bronchitis since 1993 [ 10 ]. Similarly, the third in a series of cross-sectional studies in Italy [ 11 ] showed prevalence to be stable among children born after 1985, in contrast to a threefold rise of prevalence between 1974 and 1992. The authors concluded that ‘the progressive induction of asthma symptoms in genetically predisposed subjects has probably come to an end’. Most recently, Z ö llner et al. [ 12 ] studying trends among children in SW Germany, have suggested the allergy epidemic may have reached a plateau.

Evidence for and against a relationship between atopy and reduced microbial exposure

The proposition that reduced infection and/or changed microbial exposure may have driven the rapid rise in atopic disease requires evaluation on several levels. These include biological plausibility, the strength of the epidemiological data, the temporal correlation between trends in atopy and trends in ID, prevention measures and hygiene practice. Biological plausibility is one of the greatest strengths of the hygiene hypothesis. The hypothesis generally fits with current knowledge about maturation and disorders of immune system e.g. dysregulation of T helper type 1 (Th1), Th2 and regulatory T cell pathways, although the immunological models are constantly being revised and refined. It is not the aim of this paper to assess current immunological knowledge and closeness of fit with the hypothesis. Both have been reviewed elsewhere [ 13 , 14 ] and, for the purpose of this review, biological plausibility is accepted.

Epidemiological studies of the relationship between prevalence of atopy and measures of infection and microbial exposure

The hygiene hypothesis originated not from observations about infection, but from data suggesting a relationship between atopy, family size and birth order. The link to infection was an assumption that these factors could be proxy measures of infection.

As the hypothesis has evolved, the range of potentially significant exposures under consideration has widened beyond those that result in clinical infection to include sub-clinical infection, colonization or even seemingly inconsequential exposure. Similarly, the range of microbes postulated as responsible has widened to include not only pathogens, capable of causing infection, but also non-pathogenic types or strains (commensals and environmental strains), and components of microbes such as bacterial endotoxins. There has also been a growing appreciation of the diversity of contributions by different microbes. Studies investigating the relationship between direct measures of infection or microbial exposure rates and atopy necessarily rely on epidemiological data. Even for confirmed clinical infection, accurate measures of infection rates are difficult to obtain retrospectively, especially for common, relatively minor, childhood infections. Surveillance systems are geared to monitoring diseases that are serious enough to be notifiable, and the vast majority of common infections go unrecorded. Measuring sub-clinical infection or the extent of colonization with environmental strains is even more difficult.

Many investigations have thus used other proxy measures of microbial exposure such as farm living, bed sharing and attendance at day nurseries. These studies will be reviewed first, before turning to studies that have examined more direct measures of microbial exposure and/or infection.

Family size and structure and atopy

Associations between atopy and family structure have been found in many studies, although the associations are less consistent for individual atopic diseases, and sub-divisions such as birth order, sibship size and gender.

An inverse association between atopy and family size was found in studies using hayfever, skin prick positivity and specific IgE levels as markers [ 15–17 ]. For asthma, Haby et al. [ 18 ] reported a protective effect of three or more older siblings on children aged 3–5 years, using a broad definition of asthma as a clinical diagnosis, cough or wheeze in the previous 12 months. A case–control study of clinically diagnosed asthma compared with healthy controls [ 19 ] also showed a small family size effect for cases diagnosed between 3 and 4 years of age.

The protective effect in large families was found to be stronger from older siblings [ 20 ] and from brothers compared with sisters [ 21 , 22 ]. Bodner et al. [ 23 ], however, found that older siblings decreased the probability of hayfever and eczema, whereas the risk of asthma was reduced by the presence of younger siblings. Analysis of allergies among children of 11 042 women enrolled in the ALSPAC study [ 15 ] found a protective effect from brothers for inhalant allergy, but no significant trends for overall family size. Seaton and Devereux [ 24 ], using a cohort followed up since a primary school study in 1964, found membership of a large family reduced risks of hayfever and eczema, but offered no significant protection against asthma. Furthermore, the effect of a large family was not explained by infections the child had suffered: in contrast, the larger the number of infections, the greater the likelihood of later asthma, with the exception of a modest protective effect of measles. Genetic predisposition to allergy as indicated by an atopic parent also complicates the picture: Mattes et al. [ 25 ] found a sibship relationship only in children of atopic fathers, whereas in the European study by Svanes et al. [ 21 ], family size influence on prevalence of specific IgE was restricted to children with no parental history of allergy.

Differences related to gender and birth order thus remain unexplained. There is little temporal relationship between family size and the rise in atopy: the major decline in family size dates from the early 20th century in the UK and in most other industrialized countries where atopic disorders have increased. Wickens et al. [ 26 ] estimated that declining family size could account for only a small proportion of the rise in atopy between 1961 and 1991, for example only 1% of the rise in asthma and hayfever in England and Wales during this period.

The epidemiological studies show that although these factors are related to the incidence of atopic disease, they do not explain how the relationship operates. A wholly different explanation to the hygiene hypothesis has been suggested by workers focussing on changes in the mother, rather than in the environment of the offspring. Karmaus et al. [ 27 ] suggests that the sibling effect originates in utero and that ‘the negative association of infections and atopic manifestation is not causal but more likely to be spurious’. In a study of 981 newborn babies in the Isle of Wight, England, they found that levels of cord blood IgE reduce with increasing birth order. Subsequent studies [ 28 ] showed that maternal IgE decreases with birth order, and suggest that the decrease in cord serum is an indirect effect of the reduction in maternal IgE. This could explain why younger siblings have less later atopy. Similarly, Devereux et al. [ 29 ] compared Th cell proliferative responses in cord blood samples from a cohort of 2000 births, according to birth order, maternal smoking and maternal dietary intake. The magnitude of the Th cell responses to allergens decreased with birth order and high maternal vitamin E intake, but increased with a family history of atopy or maternal smoking. They conclude that birth order, diet and smoking are the risk factors in the maternal environment for subsequent atopy.

Other proxy measures and atopy: microbial exposures in households, day nurseries, rural environments, farms and places of work

(i) Close contact: bed sharing and day nurseries. In the European Community Respiratory Health Survey [ 21 ], sharing a bedroom as a child, a factor more likely in large families, had a protective effect on the subsequent risk of atopic disease. As Strachan [ 30 ] observes, this accords with the hygiene hypothesis, in providing more opportunity for exposure to microbes or infection.

Because of the likelihood of increased exposure, an association between infections such as the common cold and day care attendance would be expected. This has been confirmed, e.g. by the Tucson Children's Respiratory Study, a prospective study in large day care facilities in the USA [ 31 ]: the children had more frequent colds at year 2 and fewer colds at the ages 6–11, than those cared for at home. There was no evident protective effect against colds by the time they had reached 13 years of age, and no protective effect was observed for children in small day care facilities. Results are inconsistent for studies investigating whether early exposure to large day care facilities protects against atopic disease.

Some studies report reduced risk of atopy [ 32–34 ] while others show no protective effect [ 35 , 19 ]. The effects on asthma and on other respiratory symptoms may be in different directions at different points in time. Using data from the Tucson Children's Respiratory Study, Ball et al. [ 31 ] reported that asthma was less frequent in children with one or more siblings at home or who had attended day care during the first 6 months of life. However, children with more exposure to other children at home or in day care were more likely to have frequent wheezing at the age of two, but had a decreased risk from the age of 6–13 years. Increased risk of transient childhood asthma associated with day care attendance was reported for Canadian children [ 19 ], although factors such as short duration of breastfeeding contributed to the raised risk; and the risk was decreased for persistent cases (6-year follow-up) with a history of day care attendance.

(ii) Farm and other rural exposure. Differences between people living in the towns or the country have long aroused curiosity. Recent studies have isolated the farm, rather than the general rural environment as the factor conveying a protective effect against atopy. For example, several studies report a reduced incidence of hayfever in children of farmers, as compared with other rural dwellers [ 36–39 ].

In the 16-year serological and questionnaire survey reported by Gassner-Bachman and Wuthrich [ 37 ], a statistically significant increase in the incidence and severity of hayfever and asthma, and of sero-prevalence of sensitization, was found in rural children with no direct contact with agriculture. By contrast, farming children had less atopic disease and lower levels of seroprevalence to a wide range of allergens, including those to which they had high exposure. An inverse dose–response relationship was identified, with children who had intermittent farm contact showing intermediate results.

Several factors have been associated with the lower prevalence of some allergies but not others: contact with animals as a child, exposure to stables under the age of 1 year, and consumption of farm milk (presumably raw/ unpasteurized) [ 38–40 ]. However the specific exposure has not been fully characterized. Much recent interest has focussed more specifically on bacterial endotoxin as the possible protective factor.

Most of the farm studies rely on serological measures of atopy or on skin prick tests (SPTs): the recent results from the ISAAC study [ 8 ] suggest that this may be an unreliable way of testing for differences in atopy and asthma between population groups. Although Leynaert et al. [ 41 ] found adults who had lived on a farm as a child had lower levels of cat sensitization and a lower risk of nasal symptoms in the presence of pollen, they found no consistent association between living on a farm in childhood and the risk of asthma or wheeze: a similar proportion had ‘atopic asthma’ in the farm and non-farm groups.

There is, however, no epidemiological evidence that working on a farm per se is associated with reduced risk of adult atopy. All the available evidence about the protective effects of exposure to farm environments discussed above relates to early childhood exposure. Farmers have a higher risk of occupational allergic disease and long-term exposure to endotoxins can harm lung function [ 42 ]. Similar hazards (but no evidence of protection against atopy) are reported for waste disposal and sewage workers [ 43 ].

More direct measures of microbial exposure and/or infection

Despite the difficulties outlined previously, several studies have attempted to evaluate the link between atopy and more direct markers of microbial exposure and/or infection.

Food-borne and gastrointestinal disease:

A retrospective case–control study in Italy among male air force cadets by Matricardi et al. [ 47 ], found that cadets with atopy had significantly lower serum levels than non-atopic controls of antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii, Helicobacter pylori , as well as HAV, although independent effects of particular infections were not assessed. The investigators concluded that early exposure to microbes via orofaecal and food-borne routes protect against respiratory allergy and that ‘hygiene and a westernized, semi-sterile diet may facilitate atopy by influencing the overall pattern of commensals and pathogens that stimulate the gut-associated lymphoid tissue’. However, some populations show no association between HAV or H. pylori status and atopic disease [ 48 , 49 ].

An important question is whether HAV acts at a molecular level, or is merely a marker for poor orofaecal hygiene and exposure to other gastrointestinal organisms. McIntire et al. [ 50 ] showed that infection by HAV may have a specific protective effect from atopy for individuals who carry a particular variant of the gene that encodes TIM-1 (also known as HAVcr-1), the cell-surface receptor used by HAV to infect human cells. In contrast, Matricardi emphasizes the importance of general (i.e. non-specific) exposure to infections during the ‘window’ period of immune system development in early life [ 51 , 52 ].

Studies of Sardinian children found that children hospitalized with non-typhoid salmonellosis were less likely to develop hayfever or asthma than children hospitalized with non-bacterial enteritis and the authors speculate that clinical or sub-clinical infection by Salmonella may contribute to the atopy protective effect of the farming environment [ 53 ].

Other studies looking at endotoxin variations in non-farm environments, [ 56 ] have found that higher levels of endotoxin in house dust are associated with less allergen sensitization in infants aged 9–24 months, as measured by skin prick testing. Böttcher [ 57 ] found endotoxin levels were higher in house dust in Estonia, where there is a low prevalence of allergy, than in Sweden, where allergy is high. The levels were inversely related to the development of atopic disease during the first 2 years of life in Swedish, but not in Estonian, children.

Other workers [ 58 , 59 ] however, have sounded notes of caution about the potential role of endotoxins in immune priming, not least about whether endotoxin per se is implicated or whether it is just a convenient, measurable marker for some other microbiological agent.

Strachan [ 30 ] suggests that the key effect of farm living may be early programming of intestinal microflora, and several authors have suggested that endotoxins may have a ‘gut priming’ role.

It has been suggested that ‘probiotics’ preparations commonly comprising lactic acid bacteria, such as Lactobacillus or Bifidobacterium may help prime or maintain normal gut flora and preserve intestinal mucosal integrity, which in turn may be beneficial to atopy and other immune-related conditions, including the response to infection. Probiotics may be protective against eczema more than other forms of atopic disorder [ 64 ]. Recent studies [ 65–68 ] suggest that probiotics may have a role in preventing respiratory and diarrhoeal diseases in children in situations where they are at increased risk of infection, e.g in day care facilities.

• Intestinal parasites. Various studies have suggested that intestinal infestation with helminths, particularly heavy and chronic infection, protects against atopy [ 69 ]. Self-reported wheeze was found to be lower in rural subsistence areas of Ethiopia than in the urban population [ 70 ]: a follow up study in the same population suggested that high degrees of parasite infection, particularly hookworm, prevented asthma symptoms in atopic individuals [ 71 ]. These findings are at first surprising as helminth infections promote a Th2 bias, and they were first explained by a ‘blocking’ mechanism whereby available cellular receptors for IgE were saturated with polyclonal IgE antibodies [ 69 ]. Helminth infections are also immuno-suppressive, however, and more recent explanations of the protective effect propose that this stems from promotion of a strong immunoregulatory network and anti-inflammatory effects that suppress symptoms in individuals otherwise predisposed to allergy [ 69 , 72 ]. Other data, however, paint a more complex picture, indicate a suppressive effect on SPT reactivity, but not asthma or allergic rhinitis [ 73 ].

Respiratory and other non-gastrointestinal diseases and atopy:

• Measles. An inverse relationship between wild measles infection and atopy has been cited as evidence for the hygiene hypothesis, most particularly the evidence from a longitudinal study of children in Guinea-Bissau following an epidemic of wild measles [ 74 ]. An important feature of this ‘natural experiment’ was the high child fatality rate (25%) introducing possible survivor bias to the results. In contrast, no evidence of a protective effect from wild measles infection was found in the 1970 UK birth cohort [ 75 ], or in a Finnish survey of children exposed to measles in the early 1980s [ 76 ]. Although immunological mechanisms by which measles might protect against atopy can be postulated, the totality of epidemiological evidence is conflicting, and there is some evidence that measles is more likely to be harmful than protective in terms of the risk of atopic disorders [ 77 ].

A study of 867 children in Japan aged 6 or 12 years at the time of routine tuberculin tests prior to BCG vaccination [ 78 ] suggested a protective effect of natural exposure to Mycobacterium tuberculosis . Others, however, have suggested this may reflect host effects rather than any causal effect between infection and atopy [ 79 ]. Alternatively, the benefits may be restricted to healthy subjects who do not develop tuberculous disease. Other retrospective analyses of BCG immunization programmes in relation to atopy have produced conflicting results [ 80–82 ].

In a study in which tuberculosis notification rates in different countries were matched to ISAAC data on the prevalence of atopic symptoms von Mutius et al. [ 55 ] concluded that there is a trend to less atopy in countries with high TB prevalence, although this again could simply reflect the theory that the healthy individuals in those communities have enhanced Th1 responses and consequently less atopy.

Mycobacteria may be of particular relevance to the hygiene hypothesis, since it has been suggested that early exposure to mycobacteria with low or no pathogenicity may protect against later atopic disease [ 83 , 84 ]. The authors postulate that mycobacteria have a key role in ensuring proper regulation of the immune system by acting as stimulators for induction of regulatory T cells. They suggest that exposure to mainly innocuous mycobacteria in soil and water has been greatly reduced by water treatment and sanitation in Western urban environments.

Investigators are now interested in the possibility that RSV may be an important primer of the immune system during the second half of pregnancy or in early infancy [ 89 ], although this is based on immunological mechanisms rather than epidemiological studies. Similarly, although early evidence suggested that respiratory infections could exacerbate existing asthma, recent studies have focused on the possibility that viral respiratory infections could have a protective or immune system ‘priming’ role [ 90–92 , 39 ].

• Malaria. A recent study in Gabon found that children with a positive skin test for atopy had a history of less infections and lower incidence of malaria than children who tested negative [ 93 ]. While these results could help to explain the lower prevalence of most forms of atopy in developing countries, this could also be a survival effect whereby children who survive malaria may have less genetic susceptibility both to infection and to atopy.

A recent cohort study [ 92 ] produced evidence of a protective relationship: the total burden of infections was inversely related to subsequent development of asthma, with specific associations for repeated runny nose and herpes-like infections, but not bacterial, fungal or gastrointestinal infections. Matricardi and Bonini [ 52 ] found that the protective effect was confined to infections other than those affecting the lower respiratory tract. Conversely, other studies point to an increased rather than reduced risk of atopy following a combination of early infections [ 24 , 97 ].

The temporal relationship between the rise in atopy and trends in infectious disease

If the trends in atopy are related to infection then, unless the mechanisms involved defer effects to later generations, the data should show a reduction in the incidence of ID just prior to the start of the rapid rise in the incidence of atopy in the 1960s/1970s. Infections should also have continued to decline during the first couple of decades, at least, of the observed rise. Also, if the window of opportunity for immune system ‘priming’ is pregnancy and early infancy, there should be evidence of a dramatic decline in ID 3–6 years before the steep rise in atopy.

The assumption that there has been a decline in ID in recent decades in countries with a notable rise in atopic disease, such as the UK, is understandable since the majority of data on ID trends derives from national surveillance data, the decline in hospital admissions for infection and the success of vaccination programmes and antibiotics. However, these data focus on serious, systemic infection and infection mortality, while the continuing burden of general ID, particularly sporadic or non-notifiable cases, tends to be overlooked. Even more neglected is the proportion of ID acquired in the home environment.

The decline in serious infections such as cholera and typhoid, associated with improvements in water, sanitation and personal hygiene, occurred in the late 19th and early 20th century in industrialized countries, much too early to be associated with the rise in atopy. For other serious notifiable disease, the decline in specific infections such as measles, mumps, rheumatic fever, tuberculosis and HAV dates from the 1940s onwards following the introduction of antibiotics and a comprehensive range of vaccines. These infections were cited recently as showing an inverse relationship with the incidence of immune disorders [ 98 ]. Yet in the UK, a country with high incidence and prevalence of atopic disorders and one of those showing the rapid post-1970 rise, there is no convincing relationship between trends in atopy and of infections as reported to national surveillance. The decline in TB started much earlier, and has reversed recently in London and other metropolitan areas. The decline in measles in the UK dates from the introduction of the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine in 1988. Similarly, a decline in HAV since 1994 in the UK following the introduction of an effective vaccine post-dates the rise in atopic disease. The longer term decline in HAV since the 1940s also shows no convincing temporal relationship with trends in atopic disorders.

Data indicate that, during the critical period relating to the rise in atopy, there has been a rise rather than a decline in many gastrointestinal infections. For example, food poisoning notifications increased from the early 1970s. Salmonella infections in England and Wales reached a peak in 1997. Although overall food poisoning figures for Salmonella are now declining, the commonest cause of bacterial gastrointestinal infection, Campylobacter , shows a continuing rise [ 99 ].

A study by Wheeler et al in 1995–6 confirmed the long accepted view that that national surveillance significantly underestimates the true incidence of infectious intestinal disease (IID) and revealed the extent of that underestimate for England and Wales [ 100 ]. This showed that many minor cases are not reported to general practitioners, and that the true figure is nearer to 9.5 million cases, suggesting that one fifth of this population suffer from one episode of IID every year. According to the UK Food Standards Agency about 50% of these infections are foodborne, the remainder being due to person to person transmission. Since many cases are ‘sporadic’ (not part of a recognized outbreak), and are not picked up by surveillance, it is reasonable to assume that a significant proportion of these infections occur in the community and in the home. The most recent WHO survey [ 99 ] suggests that about 40% of all foodborne infections across the WHO European region are caused by consumption of food in the home. The general trend for several IIDs such as rotavirus and norovirus infections is an increase over the past 20 years [ 101 ]. Wheeler [ 100 ] indicated that for every one case of rotavirus and norovirus reported to surveillance, at least 35 and 1562 additional cases respectively go unreported in the community.

Respiratory tract infections have also shown no overall decline, with the exception of those controllable by immunization, such as measles. The true incidence of respiratory tract infections is also likely to be much higher than the relatively few infections ascertained in laboratory reporting systems or by statutory notification. This particularly applies to the milder types of upper respiratory tract infection, such as the common cold and influenza-like illness. Consultation rates for influenza and influenza-like illness are well documented in the UK: a peak was noted in the winter of 1998–1999, of 200–400 per 100 000 population [ 99 ]: although influenza epidemics show a cyclic pattern and vary in severity, and thus also in the level detected by surveillance, there was no overall change preceding or during the rapid rise of atopic disorders. Similar patterns of influenza have been reported from other European countries. While RSV has declined slightly since 1997 [ 102 ], there was no recorded decline during the rapid rise of atopic disorders. For the common cold, there is no evidence of any change in incidence in recent decades or indeed over the last century. The evidence suggesting differences in frequency of colds and other minor infections related to day nursery attendance and other exposures, as reviewed earlier, may indicate differences in susceptibility between population subgroups, but it cannot be used to infer any overall increase or decrease in these infections in the population.

Although it is generally accepted that, in the US and Europe, helminth infections have steadily declined [ 103 ] there is no data available to show whether there might be a temporal trend suggesting a link between reductions in helminth infections and the rise in atopy in the developed world. However Asato et al reported rapid reductions in Ascariasis and Trichuriasis and hook worm infections during the 1950s and 60s, because of improved sanitation and improved living standards [ 104 ].

The relationship between the rise in atopy and measures taken to prevent and control infectious disease

A wide range of public health, medical and other changes have occurred over the past century such as clean water and food, sanitation, antibiotics and vaccines, all of which are likely to have resulted in significant alterations in microbial exposure and infection in the community:

Sanitation, water treatment and food quality

The evidence gives no support for a relationship between provision of treated water supplies and sanitation, and the rise in atopy over the last 30 years. Filtration and chlorination of municipal water dates from the late 19th and early 20th century in most developed countries: only a small proportion of consumers depended on untreated private water supplies after this era, particularly in the UK. Chlorination of mains water was introduced in 1908 in the USA [ 105 ] and 1910 in the UK [ 106 ]. Progress in sanitation followed the first connection of house drains and cesspools to sewers in 1848 in England. It was nearly fifty years before such systems were common. While the ‘sanitation revolution’ continued throughout the first part of the 20th century in developed countries, there appears to be no temporal association with the rapid rise in atopy over the last 30 years.

Changes in food and water quality designed to reduce our exposure to pathogens are likely to have altered our exposure to commensal and environmental strains as well as pathogens; removal of pathogens in modern water treatment inevitably also removes most benign microbial bacterial contamination, such as environmental mycobacteria. However, there is no direct temporal relationship with the rapid rise in atopy. Similarly changes in food preferences are likely to have altered the microbial content of our diet. Since foods are only controlled for pathogens, there are no available data to indicate what trends might have occurred in the broad microbial content of our diet during the period critical for the rise in atopy.

Immunization/vaccination

As vaccination involves the administration of attenuated or killed microorganisms, or selected components from them, in order to induce an immune response, the hygiene hypothesis predicts that it should influence susceptibility to atopic disease. However, epidemiological studies provide no consistent support for either a beneficial or adverse effect of vaccination/immunization on atopic tendency. The Guinea-Bissau study by Shaheen [ 74 ] suggested measles vaccination might increase the tendency to atopy, but this finding is not supported by other epidemiological studies. In a trial of pertussis vaccine in Sweden, Henderson [ 107 ] and Nilsson [ 108 ] found no convincing evidence of an effect on atopy.

Hurwitz [ 109 ] reported a twofold increase in asthma in a US study comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated children, but various authors have cautioned that, in countries with high vaccine coverage, families who choose not to immunize their children are unusual and that both increased risk of atopy and a protective effect could be demonstrated, depending on the population examined [ 110 , 30 ]. In contrast, in a carefully controlled study, Ring and colleagues [ 111 ] found that former East Germans, whose take-up of pertussis vaccination was high, experienced lower rates of asthma than their West German counterparts, many of whom shunned this vaccine.

Although Rook and Stanford [ 83 ] suggested that early exposure to mycobacteria with low or no pathogenicity may protect against later atopic disease, several studies have reported a protective effect against immune disorders for BCG [ 82 , 112–114 ]. The most supportive evidence comes from animal studies such as those showing suppression of allergen-induced eosinophilia in mice by infection with Mycobacterium bovis [ 115 ] and from promising initial results of trials with mycobacterial vaccines for the treatment of some diseases associated with immune dysregulation [ 116 , 117 ].

Antibiotic therapy

The possibility of a relationship between antibiotic use and later asthma or other atopic disease is difficult to disentangle from the potential confounders such as whether the key exposure relates to the infection or the antibiotic [ 118 ]. A study in Germany by von Mutius [ 119 ] showed that six or more courses of antibiotics in the first year of life were associated with a later excess of hayfever and eczema, but SPTs did not indicate an increase in the prevalence of atopy. Similarly, a study in UK [ 120 ] reported that any course of an antibiotic before the age of 2 years was associated with a doubling of the risk of hayfever and eczema, particularly if the antibiotics contained cephalosporins and macrolides.

Bjőrkstén [ 121 ] has proposed that the antibiotic effect could be linked to the influence on the bacterial colonization of the gut in early years of development. In line with this a study with laboratory mice [ 122 ] showed that antibiotic-induced changes in the gastrointestinal tract can affect how the immune system responds to common allergens in the lungs. A recent study presented at the 2003 European Respiratory Society conference by Christine Cole Johnson, of the Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, US (unpublished) showed that children who received antibiotics within their first 6 months of birth were up to three times more likely to develop allergies to pets ragweed, grass and dust mites by age 7. Of the 448 children studied, 49% had received antibiotics in the first 6 months of life. However, recent analysis of the relationship between antibiotics sales and the prevalence of symptoms of asthma, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, and atopic eczema in 99 centres from 28 countries [ 123 ] found there was a positive association between per capita antibiotics sales and the prevalence of symptoms for asthma, rhinitis, and eczema, but the associations generally became negative once the analyses had been adjusted for GNP. Another recent study [ 124 ] alternatively suggests that, rather than antibiotic use in early life being associated with subsequent development of asthma, frequent antibiotic use in early life is more common amongst asthmatic children.

Breastfeeding

The well-established protective effect of breastfeeding against infection is mediated by transfer of maternal antibodies and by constituents affecting the infant's gut. Breastfeeding protects against intestinal pathogens [ 125 , 126 ] and respiratory infections [ 127 , 128 ], and it is somewhat paradoxical, therefore, that in some studies the reported benefits of breastfeeding include prevention of later asthma or atopic disorders [ 18 , 129–132 ]. Breastfeeding may, however, also transfer active maternal viral infections such as HIV and Hepatitis [ 133 ].

The duration of breastfeeding appears to be an important factor, with little or no protective effect against atopy for short periods of breastfeeding, e.g. less than 3 months [ 134 , 74 , 135 ]. A dose-response effect was indicated in a retrospective longitudinal study of Canadian children aged 1–2 years: a higher risk of asthma occurred in children breastfed for up to 9 months, than in those breastfed for longer. The trend to shorter periods of breastfeeding, was also indicated in this study: 44% of the children were breastfed for only 2 months.

Auto-immune and other immune-related diseases

Several workers have looked for possible links between reduced microbial exposure and rises in certain auto-immune and other immune-related diseases which have accompanied the rise in atopic disorders. A variety of studies have found positive associations between various potential indicators of microbial exposure and inflammatory disorders regarded as Th1 mediated such as childhood diabetes [ 136–141 ], juvenile arthritis [ 142 ], Crohn's disease [ 143 ] and with childhood leukaemia [ 144–146 ]. However, as in the case of atopic disease, other studies find no association with these indicators [ 147–151 , 144 ], while others suggest that certain infections may cause the disease [ 151–155 ].

Other explanations for the rise in atopy, not linked to microbial exposure

The epidemiological evidence supporting the hygiene hypothesis as an explanation for the recent rapid rise in atopic disorders needs to be viewed in the context of other possible explanations. Indeed, it seems likely that the rise results from several factors, either operating independently, or perhaps with some measure of synergy. The observation that atopy is more prevalent among higher socio-economic groups has been cited as evidence for the hygiene hypothesis [ 30 ], although it could equally be a proxy measure for other, non-microbial factors, such as diet. Poverty has also been identified as a risk factor for asthma and other atopic disease [ 5 , 156 ], and studies in the inner cities of the USA [ 157 ] suggest that the previously observed socio-economic gradient may be levelling out.

The effects of increased contact with house-dust mites, cockroach allergen, pollen and fungal spores (for example in damp housing) are primarily seen as triggering attacks or exacerbating symptoms of atopic disease rather than increasing susceptibility to atopy [ 158 ]. However, some studies show correlation between exposure to fungi for example and sensitization, positive skin-prick tests and IgE antibodies [ 159 , 160 ]. The current balance of opinion about the effects of pollutants is similar, although perhaps moving further towards identifying situations where effects of exposure may go beyond triggering and exacerbation. For example, traffic emissions were reported to increase atopic sensitization for nine-year-old children living near major roads and in suburban areas in West Germany [ 161 ]. Ozone in urban air has been implicated as associated with increased risk of asthma [ 162 ] and heavy exercise in high ozone environments has been found to increase the asthma risk in children with no history of the disease [ 163 ].

One area of possibly more fundamental predisposition to atopy is that of nutrition and diet. Observed correlations between birth head circumference (which reflects increased birth weight [ 164 ] and raised IgE levels [ 165 ] have given rise to the suggestion that increased fetal growth trajectory resulting from improved nutrition in pregnancy and infancy may be achieved at the expense of immune system development. It is possible that changes in diet could mediate an effect, through changes in gut flora. Attempts have been made to alter the gut flora in infants [ 166 ], where manipulation is much easier than in the adult [ 167 ].

Obesity, now a major problem in children in developed countries, may be another factor in the rise in atopy. The body mass index (BMI) is positively associated with the risk of adult-onset asthma [ 168 ]. In a prevalence study by von Mutius [ 169 ], increasing BMI correlated with an increased risk of childhood asthma and atopy and BMI remained significant after adjustment for other factors. The consistency of the relationship with obesity, the temporal association and the dose response curve has prompted the theory that obesity causes asthma [ 170 ]. This is not yet a widely held view, since the biological mechanisms remain unclear [ 171 ]. Platts-Mills et al. [ 5 , 172 ] suggests that the key changed factor, related to obesity, is less exercise.

In a study in Saudi Arabia, Hijazi et al showed that diet was more directly implicated as a predisposing factor for atopy [ 173 ]. As in other changing societies, asthma has increased in urban areas of Saudi Arabia. Hijazi et al. showed that diet may be the most important change in such societies, and most likely to explain the recent trends in atopic disease. The dietary factors involved include eating at fast food outlets, as well as lower intake of milk, vegetables, fibre and foods rich in Vitamin E. Dietary vitamin E was reported to inhibit IgE responses to allergic stimuli in a random sample of 2633 adults [ 174 ]. In a study of adult-onset wheeze in Aberdeen, intakes of vitamin E and plasma levels of ascorbate (a measure of Vitamin C) were inversely related to adult wheeze in the manual social class and among current smokers [ 175 ].

Changing diet, as an explanation of trends in atopic disorders, may not only have a ‘microbial’ effect by altering the gut flora (see above) but also has biological plausibility via non-microbial mechanisms e.g. in terms of the nutrients needed for healthy immune system development, such as polyunsaturated fatty acids and antioxidants [ 173 ]. The dietary hypothesis has also been coupled with the notion that there has been a shift in the population susceptibility to atopic disease [ 176 ], possibly also linked to increasing population mixing and greater genetic diversity [ 177 ]. In an investigation of whether reduction in childhood infections or change in diet could explain increases in asthma and atopic disease, Seaton and Devereux [ 178 ] found that low intake of vitamin C was associated with a sevenfold increase in the risk of bronchial hyper-reactivity; by contrast, those with the lowest intake of saturated fats had a tenfold lower risk. In a separate study, the lowest intake of vitamin E was associated with a fivefold increase in adult-onset wheezy illness, while the lowest intake of vitamin C doubled the risk. Dietary intakes were confirmed by measurement of vitamins and triglycerides in plasma. Seaton and Devereux concluded that changes in the diet of pregnant women may have resulted in the birth of cohorts of children predisposed to atopy and asthma.

The possibility that maternal influences or changes may be important is reflected in several studies. For example, a greater risk of atopic disease has been reported in children of older mothers [ 179 ]. The risk of childhood asthma is also greater for infants with a maternal compared with a paternal history of asthma [ 180 ], indicating the possible importance of maternal imprinting (preferential expression of maternal genes in the fetus) [ 181 , 182 ], as well as the influence of the maternal-fetal interface [ 171 ]. Grandmaternal, as well as maternal, smoking has also been found to be associated with increased asthma risk in children, suggesting influences may extend beyond the parental generation [ 183 ].

For the protective factors discussed previously, such as large family size, farm life or breastfeeding, an important issue to consider is whether it is greater infection and/or greater microbial exposure, or other related ‘non-microbial factors’ which are the key. Family size undoubtedly influences the potential for case-to-case spread of infection by both aerosol and other routes, but it cannot be assumed that a large family inevitably causes increased spread of infection, or poor hygienic conditions: much depends on socio-economic factors such as overcrowding, sharing a bedroom, bed-sharing or awareness of how to prevent infections. The protective factors in farm life could include private, often untreated, water supply and non-microbial factors such as diet, exercise and outdoor activity.

Evidence for and against the proposition that the reduced microbial exposure critical for immune development relates to improved hygiene practice, household amenities and personal cleanliness

The second proposition of Strachan's original hypothesis was that the reduced microbial exposure causing the rise in atopy was due to ‘improved household amenities and higher standards of personal cleanliness’. A popular view is that the microbial or infection exposure required for the development of a balanced immune system has been reduced as a result of the more ‘rigorous’ cleaning and hygiene practices which we now use not only to counter our fear of exposure to ‘germs’ but also to create a more aesthetically pleasing dirt-free environment in which to live. Evidence in relation to this question derives from the following sources:

Epidemiological studies of the relationship between the proxy measures of cleanliness and hygiene and the rise in atopy

Hygiene practices in relation to atopy

In two recent studies, Sherriff and co-workers [ 184 , 185 ] examined the link between ‘hygiene behaviour’ and atopy by devising hygiene scores for personal hygiene practices, and looking for associations with wheezing and atopic eczema. The data was derived from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). In self-completed questionnaires for 10 970 children aged 15 months, parents were asked how often in a normal day they wiped the child's face and hands, whether hands were wiped before meals and how often the child was given a bath or shower. The cumulative hygiene score derived from these responses was examined statistically in relation to socio-economic and peri-natal factors. These data suggested a ‘cleanliness norm’ for the majority of the children comprising washing face and hands 3–4 times a day, hands cleaned before meals, and a daily bath or shower. The hygiene scores ranged from 2 (least hygienic) to 14 (most hygienic). A score of > 10 was independently associated with maternal smoking during pregnancy, low maternal educational achievement, living in local authority housing and increased use of chemical household products (the latter based on a score derived from reported use of disinfectant, bleach and aerosols). High scores were also associated with higher maternal parity (2 or more children), short duration or no breastfeeding, overcrowded accommodation and little contact with dogs or other furry pets. In their follow up questionnaire study asking about atopic symptoms, Sherriff [ 184 ] reported that high scores for children aged 15 months were independently associated with increased risk of wheezing and eczema when this group of children reached 30 and 42 months of age. Mothers with a history of eczema were less likely to have children with a high score than non-atopic mothers, suggesting that knowledge of factors that exacerbate eczema influenced frequency of child bathing: no such association was found for mothers with a history of asthma.

While the responders in this long-standing ALSPAC study would be accustomed to answering questions, the association of high scores with social disadvantage (low educational attainment and overcrowded living conditions) and maternal smoking is surprising and raises the possibility of an association between social disadvantage and a tendency to exaggerate about personal cleanliness, particularly where this relates to childcare. Alternatively, these social factors may influence hygiene practice: for example, in younger, poorer or less educated mothers. The study also contains no measures of microbial exposure or how effective individual hygiene practices may have been in terms of reducing microbial exposure. Some studies [ 186 ] report that both asthma prevalence and severity are associated with social disadvantage. The findings from the ALSPAC study may thus reflect a non-causal association between asthma and hygiene behaviour.

Use of household cleaning products and atopy

A comparison of soap and detergent consumption with data on prevalence of atopic disease [ 187 ] showed no evidence of a relationship; plots of per capita consumption of soap, detergents and cleaning products in 1994 for 12 European countries against reported prevalence of asthma, hayfever and eczema as reported in the ISAAC study [ 8 ] showed no correlation. Nor was any correlation apparent between individual diseases and individual product types such as fabric washing detergents, dishwashing detergents, toilet soaps and hard surface cleaners. Consumption of household bleach, a highly effective disinfectant that is widely used by consumers, varies greatly across Europe but again shows no correlation with prevalence of atopic disease. Bleach consumption per capita is highest in Spain and other countries of southern Europe, which have relatively low incidence of atopy, whereas in Scandinavia, where bleach use is limited, some 30 times lower per capita than in Spain, atopy rates are relatively high.

Temporal relationship between the rise in atopy and trends in hygiene practice

As far as personal and other hygiene practices in the home are concerned, widespread access to clean water, soap and chemicals to aid cleaning dates back, with only a few exceptions to the end of the 19th Century, and thus significantly predate the rise in atopy. During the last half century availability of household amenities and appliances and the range and effectiveness of household cleaning products has increased. Water use has increased in all industrialized countries, including use both for personal cleanliness and for kitchen appliances such as dishwashers and washing machines.

Although the discovery of the transmission of infection by microorganisms led to much greater emphasis on hygiene in the home, this occurred mainly around the turn of the 19th/20th century. Prior to the 20th century, home hygiene was largely focussed on food preparation and storage. During the first half of the 20th century there was increasing emphasis on cleanliness in the home, with advice on regularly cleaning walls, ceilings and other areas, partly prompted by the fear of infection before the antibiotic era. An increasing number of products and equipment were developed for home cleaning during the last century, but other social changes during the latter part of the century changed the approach to housework and its extent:

• Domestic help became less available and more expensive;
• Women increasingly worked outside the home and had less time for housework;
• Vaccination and antibiotic therapy for treatment of infectious enemies, such as diphtheria and typhoid fever reduced perception that hygiene was important.

These changes led to a more superficial approach to home cleaning, with speed and aesthetic factors more important than hygiene and disease prevention. The trend towards the modern pattern of frequent bathing and laundering in the USA and UK dates from 1890 to 1915. Soap manufacture in the USA more than doubled between 1904 (700 000 tonnes (8.4 kg per capita)) and 1919 (1 700 000 tonnes, 16 kg per capita) [ 188 ]. The increasing popularity of showers in the USA occurred between the 1940s and 1960s, with the proportion of American homes with bathtubs and/or showers increasing from 61% in 1940 to 87% in 1960 [ 188 ]. Similar rises in showers, although slightly later, have occurred in European countries but the rise in atopy occurred at much the same time throughout the industrialized world.

Many cleaning agents used since the 1960s/70s are formulations of chemicals that have been available for a considerable time, such as bleach or phenolic disinfectants. The first detergent powders were introduced at the beginning of the 20th century. Usage of soap, detergents and cleaning products has continued to rise over the last 50 years, although at a lower rate than observed in the first quarter of the 20th century.

The data in Table 1 suggests a steady rise in consumption of soaps and detergents to a peak in the late 80s, followed by a decline to 1994. However, changes in product classification as well as formulation distort the picture such that only broad assessments are possible. For example, the rapid growth of liquid fabric washing and rinse conditioning products in the 1980s meant that the total consumption of product increased, but not the ‘cleaning power’ deployed. Conversely, the introduction of more concentrated liquid and powder products in the late 80s and early 90s will have had the opposite effect . Taking into account these formulation trends [ 187 ] it is estimated that the real increase in cleaning product usage across the 12 European countries over the 25 year period would have been of the order of 50%. Such changes are considerably smaller than the variation in usage between countries, which range from 8 kg/cap in Finland to 30 kg/cap in Spain, although different national formulation preferences again distort this picture.

Per capita consumption (kg) of soaps and detergents

With regard to temporal trends for particular product types, the greatest increases have been in use of dishwashing products and hard surface cleaners, although the rise in the latter was substantially offset by the decline of hard soap and scouring products previously used for this purpose. Detergents based on synthetic surfactants, rather than soap, came into general use in the 1950s, thus pre-dating the rise in atopy.

In assessing whether the altered microbial exposure which may be responsible for the current trends in atopy bears a relationship to changes in our cleaning and hygiene habits, it is also necessary to evaluate studies of the impact of hygiene on microbial exposure in the community, and the various case control studies etc. assessing the impact on infection rates. These are discussed in the next part of this section.

Hygiene practice and microbial exposure and infection in the home

Microbial contamination and infection in the home

If we compare our modern centrally-heated, double-glazed, sealed homes, with homes of the 1950s where coal fires, urban pollution and open windows meant that housewives waged a constant war against dust and dirt, it is easy to make the assumption that modern homes are ‘cleaner’. In the immediate post-war years, lack of resources meant that European homes were less well maintained; cracked tiles, damaged flooring etc. all added to giving homes the appearance of being ‘dirty’.

In recent years a range of studies have been published, as reviewed by Beumer et al. [ 189 ], showing that pathogenic, commensal and environmental microbial species are all introduced continually into the home by people, food, water, pets, and sometimes via the air, and that our modern home environments, despite their clean appearance still offer constant opportunities for microbial exposure.

As far as food is concerned, exposure to food-borne microorganisms (both pathogens and commensals) during food handling in the home must be a fairly common occurrence. Surveys of chickens in the UK between 1979 and 1998 indicated contamination rates between 25% and 79% for Salmonella [ 190 ] and 80–90% for Campylobacter [ 191 , 192 ]. While recent data [ 193 ] suggest that these rates have now fallen, data on the high chicken consumption in the UK suggest that at least one in 25 UK homes prepare a meal with contaminated chicken every day of the year. Similar high rates of contamination are reported from other European countries, such as the Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany [ 194 ]. Cattle and sheep are important sources of Escherichia coli O157; Chapman et al. [ 195 ] showed that 0.4–0.8% of meat products purchased from UK butchers were positive for E. coli O157. Domestic cats and dogs in the home can act as reservoirs and shedders of Salmonella, Campylobacter and other enteric pathogens as well as commensal strains [ 196 ]. In a recent study [ 197 ], 19 species of Campylobacter , including C. upsaliensis and C. jejuni were isolated from 100 faecal specimens obtained from a London cattery.

Exposure to microorganisms from these human, animal, food and environmental sources can occur either by direct contact or by transfer involving inhalation of infected aerosols, consumption of contaminated food or water, or indirect transfer via hands or other surfaces into the nose, mouth or eyes, or into open cuts or wounds etc. Laboratory-based studies [ 198–203 ] show that bacteria and viruses spread to environmental surfaces from an infected or carrier source can survive in significant numbers for periods of several hours and in some cases days particularly on surfaces where moisture is present but also on dry surfaces. Other studies show that, when surfaces become contaminated, the organisms are readily spread via hands, cleaning cloths, and hand and food contact surfaces around the home, providing continual opportunities for human exposure [ 200 , 204–206 ]. Using a bacteriophage φX174 as a model, Rheinbaben et al. [ 207 ] showed that, following contact (handshaking) with a volunteer whose hands were contaminated from touching a virus-contaminated door handle, successive transmission from one person to another could be followed up to the sixth person. Similarly, Cogan et al. [ 200 ] demonstrated that, following preparation of Salmonella- and Campylobacter- contaminated chickens in domestic kitchens, these species could be isolated from 17.3% of the hands, and hand and food contact surfaces sampled.

Although raw food is probably the main source of microbes in kitchens, there is evidence for a contributory role of surfaces such as draining boards, sinks, U-tubes, nappy buckets, dishcloths and cleaning utensils: wet sites, in particular, may act as permanent sources or reservoirs of free-living bacterial populations. In the bathroom or toilet, enteric bacteria probably originate from the toilet or directly from people, but permanent reservoirs of bacteria readily survive in baths, basins, cleaning cloths and face cloths [ 209 ]. Most species isolated in these studies are not normally pathogenic, but the evidence suggests an abundant population of microorganisms in the home. An evaluation of dust samples in 20 US homes showed high levels of endotoxin on kitchen and bedroom floors [ 208 ]. These and other data [ 209–212 ] confirm that all types of microbes, are found in all areas of the home environment, and that patterns or levels of microbial contamination have not significantly altered in the 20 years between the earliest and most recent of these studies.

The extent to which exposure to food-borne pathogens still occurs in the home is suggested by community-based [ 100 ] estimates that, each year, one in five of the population in England and Wales suffers a bout of IID. While contaminated food accounts for about 75% of reported infections attributed to bacteria, enteric viral infections are spread mainly by person-to-person contact or via aerosolized particles resulting from vomiting or fluid diarrhoea. During and after viral infections (both respiratory and enteric viral infections), virus particles are shed in large numbers in body fluids including blood, faeces, saliva and nasal secretions. There is relatively little data on the occurrence of viruses in the home environment, but a recent study in five US homes where there was an influenza-infected child showed the presence of influenza A virus on between 20% and 100% of the surfaces sampled, which included telephone receivers, door knobs, toilet handles and computer surfaces [ 213 ]. Other studies show that surface to finger/surface to mouth transmission of rotavirus readily occurs [ 214 , 215 ]; in a laboratory study, Ward et al. [ 214 ] showed that 13 out of 14 adult subjects became infected after consuming Rotavirus (10 3 particles). The potential for norovirus transmission from person-to-person via hands and surfaces is indicated by the recurrent infection outbreaks in successive cohorts of guests in hotels and cruise ships [ 216 , 217 ]. Epidemiological studies suggest that, whereas aerosols are the main route of dissemination within a cohort of people, contaminated surfaces are responsible for ongoing outbreaks by forming the link between successive groups. A recent study [ 218 ] shows the ease of spread of norovirus via hands, cloths and other surfaces. There is now growing evidence that respiratory infections such as rhinovirus and RSV infections can also be spread via hands and surfaces such as handkerchiefs, tissues, door handles and telephones; indications are that the virus is transferred via the fingers to the nasal mucosa or conjunctiva; self-inoculation with rhinovirus by rubbing nasal mucosa or the eye can lead to infection [ 219 , 220 ].

A key questions with regard to the hygiene hypothesis, which remains to be addressed, is how big the critical microbial exposure needs to be. Must exposure be sufficient to cause clinical infection or at least asymptomatic colonization, or is ‘subclinical exposure’ adequate to produce the required immune response? The evidence (see review by Beumer et al. [ 189 ] suggests that, for some pathogens, the ‘infectious dose’ may be as little as 1–100 cells or particles, while for others, exposure to several thousands of units may be required to elicit clinical infection.

The impact of cleaning and hygiene practices on cross contamination and microbial exposure in the home

When people set about ‘cleaning’ their home, or their hands, or body surface, visual observation is used to decide whether ‘cleanliness’ has been achieved. The assumption that visibly clean means ‘free from microbes’ is a misconception. In practice a hygienically clean surface, i.e a surface free from microbes, can be achieved using soap or detergent and water, but, as this involves mechanical removal of the microbes, to be effective it must be properly applied, and used in conjunction with a thorough rinsing process under running water. The alternative method is to apply a disinfectant product which kills the microbes in situ .

A range of ‘in-homes’ studies, as reviewed by Beumer et al. [ 189 ] demonstrate that soap or detergent-based cleaning routines, as they are currently practised in the home, may have only a limited effect in reducing exposure to microbes. Thus for example, Cogan et al. [ 200 ] demonstrated that, following preparation of Salmonella- and Campylobacter- contaminated chickens in domestic kitchens, 15.3% of hands, and hand and food contact surfaces still showed evidence of contamination even after participants had carried out a washing-up routine with detergent and hot water in a washing-up bowl and then used the cloth to wipe surfaces ‘clean’. A separate study involving the hands, cloths and chopping board showed that, where surfaces were cleaned using the bowl-wash routine but then rinsed under running water, a more significant reduction was achieved, but 23% of 60 sites sampled were still contaminated with Salmonella . A recent study [ 218 ] showed that, where surfaces contaminated with a faecal suspension infected with norovirus were cleaned using detergent solution applied with a cloth, the virus was not eliminated from the surface. Detergent-based cleaning was insufficient even where the cloth was rinsed in clean water and the surface re-wiped. These and other studies [ 200 , 218 , 221 ] clearly demonstrate that, where a hygiene procedure fails to eliminate contamination from a surface and the cleaning cloth or mop is then used to wipe another surface, the contamination is transferred to that surface, and to the hands of the person handling the cloth.

Preventing microbial transfer in the home depends not only on the effectiveness of the hygiene procedure, but also on when it is applied. The critical influence of these factors on microbial exposure is rarely appreciated. An ‘in homes’ study to evaluate the effects of routine day-to-day home cleaning [ 222 ], showed that, before cleaning, one in five (20%) of 10 selected hand and food contact and other sites in the kitchen, bathroom and toilet could be considered as hygienically clean (<10 colony forming units per 25 cm 2 ). After detergent-based cleaning, the proportion of contaminated sites was actually increased to 68%. Although disinfectant products were effective in reducing microbial contamination levels, the effects were relatively short lived. After a relatively limited period (90 min to 3 h), most sites and surfaces become substantially re-contaminated. This is probably because of reuse, redisposition from the air or, for wet sites or surfaces (e.g. for damp cloths), regrowth of residual survivors not destroyed by the hygiene process. In other studies where effects were monitored over longer periods (3 days to 9 months [ 211 , 222 ] the authors concluded that casual use of disinfectant cleaners for daily or weekly cleaning is unlikely to reduce the risk of exposure to pathogens.

The ineffectiveness of non-specific routine cleaning activities in reducing infection exposure is supported by a recent study of home hygiene practices and infection in 398 households of an inner city population [ 223 ]. Only two specific practices, using a communal laundry and not using bleach in communal laundering, were found to be predictive of increased risk of infection. Other general cleaning practices such as daily personal bathing or showering, daily cleaning of bathrooms and toilets, frequent changing of dish-sponges, or use/non use of antimicrobial cleaning products for these activities, showed no significant correlation with infection rates.

In arguing the proposition that reduced exposure to microbial pathogens has resulted from changes in domestic cleaning and hygiene practices in recent years, this begs an assumption that patterns of hygiene behaviour in the home are of a type and quality that reduces pathogen exposure. Although there is good evidence to show that handwashing and other hygiene interventions in the home can have a significant impact in reducing the incidence of infection [ 224 ] a number of observational studies suggest that compliance with hygiene practices that specifically protect us from pathogen exposure is relatively poor. A study of 108 UK participants to estimate the risk of food poisoning following domestic food preparation showed that only a small proportion of consumers (4.6%) fully implemented appropriate food safety measures while 3.7% prepared food in a way that seriously violated recommended practice and exposed them to a high level of risk [ 225 ]. These results complement the studies of Cogan et al. [ 200 , 226 ] described previously, which showed the extent to which pathogens are spread, from a contaminated chicken during food preparation in a domestic kitchen. Similarly Curtis et al. [ 227 ] studied the hygiene practices of mothers with young children who had recently been vaccinated for polio, and were consequently shedding the virus in their faeces. Only 43% of childcarers washed their hands after changing a nappy compared with 76% who washed them after toilet visits. Nappy changing took place mainly in the living room and contact with living room surfaces and objects during nappy changing was frequent. Not surprisingly, poliovirus was detected on 12% of living room surfaces, 10% of kitchen surfaces and 15% of bathroom sites. Hand contact sites were most frequently contaminated, such as bathroom taps, toilet flushes and door handles, soap dispensers and nappy changing equipment.

Discussion of the hygiene hypothesis and the implications for hygiene practice

The link between atopy, and microbial exposure and infection

In the first part of this paper the evidence for a causal link between the sharp rise in atopy over the past 30 years and the possibility of a reduction in our level of exposure to microbes was reviewed. Although many of the studies cited in support of the hygiene hypothesis are based on proxy measures of microbial exposure, some provide striking evidence supporting such a link. A consistent finding is the inverse relation between atopy, family size and birth order. There is also an apparent protective effect for children living on a farm. In addition however, there are numerous contradictory studies, and the totality of the evidence remains inconclusive.

Some proponents of the hygiene hypothesis suggest that the infection exposure necessary for immune priming should be ‘intense’ [ 228 ] or at least produce clinical disease [ 69 ]. In this review, data covering the past 100 years was examined in order to look for infection trends which might correlate inversely with trends in atopy, supporting the hypothesis, and might provide clues as to the nature of the critical exposure. The data show that the decline in serious infections such as cholera and typhoid, mumps, rheumatic fever and tuberculosis occurred too early to be associated with the rise in atopic disease in the late 20th century, unless the mechanisms are such that the effects are manifest only in subsequent generations. There is conflicting evidence regarding an inverse relationship between atopy and exposure to infections such as measles, HAV and Mycobacterium tuberculosis . While ‘old’ infections with high mortality have declined, this has, to an extent, been offset by the emergence of new infections with high mortality, or those which have re-surfaced (e.g. tuberculosis). Introduction of measures designed to reduce the burden of ID, such as improved housing, sanitation and clean drinking water, correlate with the decline in life threatening enteric disease during the first part of the 20th century, rather than the later rise in atopy. Reduced consumption of food-borne pathogens is also an unlikely candidate as the incidence of food poisoning rose during the critical period of the rise in atopic disorders.

Intuitively the idea that exposure to invasive infection, with all the attendant risks might be needed to protect against atopy seems inefficient in evolutionary terms. A more plausible explanation is that the critical change involves less severe endemic infections. As far as ID morbidity is concerned, there is no evidence of a general decline across the broad range of gastro-intestinal, respiratory and other endemic infections, even in developed countries. Additionally, although the findings of a recent large scale study of 24 341 mother–child pairs [ 229 ] confirmed that larger family sizes, early childcare, pet keeping and farm living correlates with decreased risk of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children before 18 months, the results suggested that experience of ID in early life is associated with increased, rather than reduced, risk of AD.

An alternative possibility is that, rather than infection, ‘background’ exposure to ‘subclinical’ doses of pathogens, or to commensal or environmental microbes, particularly those with low invasiveness or virulence such as the rapid growing saprophytic strains of Mycobacteria , or perhaps to endotoxins could be the key. In a recent review paper, Rook [ 13 ] proposes that the immune dysregulation associated with increased risk of atopy is a consequence of decreased exposure to certain microbes that are ‘old friends’, because of their continuous presence throughout mammalian evolution. He proposes that organisms such as saprophytic mycobacteria, helminths and lactobacilli are recognized by the immune system as harmless, and act as adjuvants for immune regulation. This has prompted work on the development of mycobacterial vaccines for the treatment of some diseases associated with immune dysregulation, with promising initial results [ 116 , 117 ]. The apparent protective effect against atopy of living on a farm in childhood is consistent with the possibility that ‘background exposure’ may be the critical factor.

Thus, despite some good evidence supporting a link between microbial exposure and susceptibility to atopic disease, clear evidence is still lacking as to the nature of the critical changes that might have occurred, whether it is the general level of exposure which is important, or exposure to specific microbes, whether exposure is only important at certain times of life, or whether the route of exposure is important etc.

The link between atopy, microbial exposure and hygiene practice in the home

The second key question for this review is whether the microbial exposure that is vital for the development of the immune system might no longer occur, or might occur to an insufficient extent, is a result of modern trends in hygiene and personal cleanliness.

Evidence of a link between atopy and domestic cleaning and hygiene is weak at best. Data published since the 1980s, as reviewed in this paper, show that our modern homes, whatever their visual appearance, still abound with a rich mixture of bacteria, viruses, fungi and moulds, as well as dust mites and other insects, and that our opportunities for exposure to these are quite likely to have increased rather than decreased, since a rising proportion of time is spent indoors [ 5 ]. The evidence shows that human, animal and food-borne microbes are continuously brought into the home and that transmission from these and other sources via hands, hand contact surfaces, food preparation surfaces and cloths during normal daily activities provide ample opportunities for exposure to foodborne pathogens or pathogens from infected people or pets, as well as exposure to commensals and environmental microbes.

Although consumption of cleaning products has increased over time, consumption overall or for individual product types for individual European countries shows no correlation with levels of atopy. In reality routine daily or weekly cleaning habits actually have little effect in reducing exposure to microbes beyond the levels that have probably prevailed throughout the rise in atopy, even where they involve use of a disinfectant. Re-colonization of surfaces rapidly occurs and many species are adapted to survival, even on apparently dry surfaces. Contrary to perception, domestic cleaning practices can actually increase the distribution of microbes in the home. While ‘hygiene’ practice (i.e. the specific actions we take to prevent transmission of disease) has been shown to be associated with reduced infection rates, observational studies indicate that consumer adherence to basic hygiene rules remains poor. Although the pattern of microbial exposure in the home may have changed, there is no evidence that our modern preoccupation for cleanliness has resulted in a decline in overall microbial exposure.

The suggestion that trends towards more frequent showering and bathing show a temporal correlation with the rise in atopy is superficially consistent with the results of the ALSPAC Study [ 184 , 185 ], but requires further investigation. In this study the emphasis was towards ‘routine’ rather than ‘targeted’ hygiene i.e. ‘parents were asked how often in a day they wiped the child's face and hands, whether hands were wiped before meals and how often the child was given a bath or shower’. Only 0.4% of children had the highest hygiene score, an insufficient proportion to account for the several fold rise in atopy that has been seen across the whole population.

From the evidence linking atopy to declining family size, it can be argued that, regardless of hygiene behaviour, a decrease in the number of people in the home inevitably decreases opportunities for person-to-person transfer of human commensals, or case-to-case spread of infections via direct or indirect contact or airborne transmission, although much depends on socio-economic factors such as overcrowding, bed-sharing and education level. However, if exposure to childhood infections or commensals is important, it should be found that the effects of decline in family size are offset by increased opportunities for exposure resulting from attendance at day nursery. Although there is some supporting data, other studies show no evidence of a protective effect. The strong evidence for a link between farm living and reduced risk of atopy also supports the possibility that exposure to environmental microbes (and possibly helminths) in our outdoor environment could be the key factor.

Quite apart from hygiene, there are a number of other lifestyle, medical and public health trends which could equally well have caused incidental changes in microbial exposure, manifesting as increased risk of atopy. For example, changes must have occurred in the non-pathogenic microbial flora of water or foods consequent on changing technologies of water purification and food production etc, but as food and water is only routinely monitored for pathogen content there are no data to show what these trends might have been. Alternatively the changes may have been generated by the introduction of antibiotics. This might have operated either by changing the nature, intensity and duration of exposure to pathogens, or by altering the normal balance of commensal microbes such as the gut flora. Although this fits well with the rise in atopy in temporal terms, the supporting data is inconsistent. The balance of evidence is also against vaccination as a causative factor. More important perhaps is the significant evidence supporting a range of ‘non-microbial’ factors, such as diet, obesity and lack of exercise which may be causative factors in the rise in atopy.

The implications for hygiene practice

On the basis of current evidence, relaxing hygiene standards seems neither justified, nor rational. On the contrary, current concerns about ID, and the key role that hygiene plays in controlling ID, provides compelling reasons why we should not do this.

As discussed previously, the global burden of ID is still a major concern, accounting for over 18 million deaths annually: while the majority of deaths occur in the developing world, infection also causes around 4% of deaths in developed countries [ 230 ]. Although ID mortality is declining in the developed world, trends in morbidity suggest a change in the pattern of ID rather than declining rates. This is partly associated with emergence of new infections, such as E. coli O157 and the re-emergence of old pathogens; tuberculosis has increased in Europe, including more invasive and antibiotic-resistant strains, while in the former soviet block countries, diphtheria cases rose 50-fold from 1989 to 1995 [ 230 ]. The globalization of infection risks has also increased because of global food markets, increased travel and refugee movements: thus pathogens can more readily reach areas where there is little or no innate resistance:

In recent decades, our attitudes to ID in developed countries have become more relaxed, nurtured by the evidence that improved quality of water, sanitation, housing and nutrition have produced a marked decline in infection mortality from infections such as typhoid fever and cholera. Antimicrobial therapy and advances in immunization have supplemented this trend. Yet several factors are combining to make it likely that the threat of ID will increase in coming years, rather than decrease. One such factor is the rising proportion of the population who are more vulnerable to infection. Such ‘vulnerable groups’ include the elderly: it is estimated that, by 2025, more than 800 million people will be aged over 65 years in the world, two-thirds of these in developing countries [ 231 ]. Other groups include neonates, people with chronic or degenerative illness; and immuno-compromised patients discharged from hospital. All of these groups, together with family members who are carriers of HIV, are increasingly cared for at home. Currently, about one in six persons in the UK belongs to an ‘at risk’ group, and it is likely that the same applies in most European countries [ 232 ].

In addition to the threat posed by acute infections, pathogens are increasingly implicated as causative or as co-factors in cancers and some degenerative diseases. Examples include Hepatitis B virus [ 233 ], C. jejuni [ 234 ] and H. pylori [ 235 ]. Foodborne illness has been estimated to result in chronic sequelae in 2–3% of cases [ 236 ]; a more recent report from the European Commission [ 237 ] cited evidence of chronic disease, such as reactive arthritis, following 5% of Salmonella cases, with 5% also of E. coli O157 cases progressing to the serious and often fatal complication of uraemic syndrome.

Antibiotic resistance is a global problem with resistant strains such as MRSA spreading into communities [ 238 , 239 ]. The need for improved hygiene to reduce the spread of antibiotic resistance has been recommended by recent working parties in Europe [ 240 ]. Reduced rates of infection and antibacterial resistance have been demonstrated where an approach combining good hygiene and reduced prescribing has been evaluated [ 241 , 242 ].

Measures such as water purification, sanitation, waste disposal and hygiene have played an essential role over the past two centuries in reducing the burden of ID, most markedly in developed countries. For developing countries, where the ID burden remains high, it is now apparent that health gains commensurate with investment in programmes of water and sanitation will only be achieved if steps are also taken to improve standards of hygiene practice. A review of intervention studies [ 224 ] suggests that, even in the developed world, improved standards of personal and environmental hygiene could reduce infection transmission by over 20%. The overall conclusion is that hygiene is a key cornerstone in the control of ID, and that a significant increase in morbidity and mortality from infection would result from any attempt to reduce the integrated practices of sanitation, clean water provision and hygiene practice.

Developing a rational approach to home hygiene

Regardless of whether the hygiene hypothesis is correct, the popular interpretation that ‘dirt is good for us’ [ 243 ] has considerably influenced attitudes, and caused loss of confidence among the public regarding home hygiene. One positive benefit however is a recognition by public health professionals of the need to provide clearer guidance. One of the concepts which we need to clarify is the difference between ‘dirt’ and ‘germs’, and between ‘cleanliness’ and ‘hygiene’. Without knowing the nature of the microbial exposure which may be critical for immune priming, it is difficult to reformulate hygiene policy, in favour of improving immune function without compromising protection against ID. Even if we had the correct information, selective targeting of hygiene interventions, as a means of maintaining beneficial microbial exposure, would only be an option if their mode of transmission were significantly different from that for pathogens. If it were proved that intense infection is an essential factor, the evidence suggests that encouraging such exposures would cause significant morbidity and mortality; if the main effect was, for example, a reduction in hayfever, with little or no impact on asthma, the ‘trade off’ would represent a very poor bargain. If it turns out that more general ‘background’ exposure is needed, e.g. organisms with low invasiveness or virulence, such as the rapid growing saprophytic strains of Mycobacteria , the idea of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ types of microbial exposure is academic, unless we could engineer the ‘right’ exposure, without introducing dangerous organisms. As untreated water may contain up to 10 9 mycobacteria per litre, the difficulty is how to preserve the ‘friendly’ species while removing those likely to cause disease. One option that is already being pursued is an attenuated vaccine containing the ‘right’ type of microbes (e.g. saprophytic mycobacteria), and there is evidence of efficacy of a vaccine strategy in animal studies [ 244 ] and in some of human trials [ 245 , 246 ]. With vaccine strategies, there is no conflict with hygiene.

If background exposure is proved to be the important factor, this opens up the way to promote an approach to hygiene which focuses on preventing exposure to infectious doses of pathogens, but is more relaxed about other exposures. As part of its work to promote better understanding of hygiene and better hygiene practice, the International Scientific Forum on Home Hygiene (IFH) has produced guidance documents on home hygiene practice [ 247 , 248 ]. The key feature of the guidelines is that they are based on the concept of risk assessment and risk prevention. [ 249 , 250 ]. Risk assessment (also known as HACCP or Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) is now the accepted approach for controlling microbial risks in food and other manufacturing environments. Applied to the home this has come to be known as ‘targeted hygiene’.

The IFH guidelines start from the premise that homes always contain potentially harmful microbes (from people, pets, food, etc.) and that ID prevention is not about eradication, but about targeting measures in the places and at the times that matter, in order to limit risks of exposure. Fundamental to developing infection prevention policies is the need to recognize that the home is an environment where all human activities occur including food hygiene, personal hygiene (particularly hands) and hygiene related to care of vulnerable groups, all of which are based on the same underlying microbiological principles. Hygienic cleanliness (reducing the level of contamination to a level that does not pose a significant risk) is required only where the infection risk is significant e.g. after contact with excreta, during food preparation etc. The level of risk varies according to occupants of the home (e.g. presence of children, pets, ill people) and their immune status.

Although this review concludes that the relationship of the hygiene hypothesis to hygiene practice has not been proved, it lends strong support to initiatives which seek to improve hygiene practice. Whatever the reality regarding atopy and microbial exposure, ‘targeted hygiene’ with its emphasis on selective hygiene intervention when and where risks of infection are greatest makes sense on its own merits because it seeks to maximize protection against the harmful effects of ID, while retaining the beneficial effects which microbes may have on our human and natural environment.

The term ‘hygiene hypothesis’ initially raised awareness of the role of microbes and their products in immune regulation. It has also stimulated a considerable amount of research into the aetiology of atopic disease. This research has highlighted that the term has probably now outlived its usefulness. Several of its proponents have suggested renaming the hypothesis as the ‘microbial deprivation hypothesis’ (Bjorksten [ 251 ]) or the ‘old friends hypothesis’ (Rook [ 13 ]). Avoiding the term ‘hygiene’ would help focus attention on determining the true impact of microbes on atopic diseases, while minimizing risks of discouraging good hygiene practice.

Having trouble hearing a pronunciation? * Click here to listen with your default audio player .

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

English pronunciation of hypothesis

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

(English pronunciations of hypothesis from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus and from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary , both sources © Cambridge University Press)

Word of the Day

to move something by pulling it along a surface, usually the ground

Treasure troves and endless supplies (Words and phrases meaning ‘source’)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• All translations

To add ${headword} to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add ${headword} to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

How to pronounce hygiene hypothesis

Hygiene hypothesis.

Pronounce Hygiene Hypothesis as HH Y G IY EH N EH HH Y P OW T HH EH S IY S .

Rate the pronunciation struggling of Hygiene Hypothesis

Spell and check your pronunciation skill

Press and start speaking

Click on the microphone icon and begin speaking Hygiene Hypothesis .

Permission to use microphone was denied. Permission to use microphone is blocked. To change, go to chrome://settings/content Exceptions#media-stream. Click the "Allow" button above to enable your microphone. No microphone was found. Ensure that a microphone is installed and that microphone settings are configured correctly.

Web Speech API is not supported by this browser. Upgrade to Chrome version 25 or later.

Phonetic transcription for hygiene hypothesis

• Traditional IPA Phonetic transcription of hygiene hypothesis: | hjɡɪɛnɛ hjpoʊthɛsɪs |
• Modern IPA Phonetic transcription of hygiene hypothesis: | hʌɡɪɛnɛ hʌpɒthɛsɪs |

Fancy Text Styles for the Word or Name hygiene hypothesis

Elevate your profile name, statuses, and messages on platforms such as Instagram, WhatsApp, Twitter, and Facebook using our stylish text styles. Enhance your online presence with distinct and eye-catching variations, adding a personalized touch to your posts and profile.

Choose a language to start learning

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On PronounceHippo, You Should Consider:

PronounceHippo is the fastest growing and most trusted language learning site on the web. If you like what you are support learn languages platform's , please consider join membership of our web site.

Join Pronounce Hippo

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Meanings for hygiene hypothesis

meaning not found, are you like to contribute meaning of this word please share it.

Example Sentences of hygiene hypothesis

Sentences not found!

Can you give better example Sentences of hygiene hypothesis

Synonyms for hygiene hypothesis

Synonyms not found, are you like to contribute synonyms of this word please share it.

Antonyms for hygiene hypothesis

Antonyms not found, are you like to contribute Antonyms of this word please share it.

Hygiene Hypothesis in different languages

Translation not found, are you like to contribute Translation of please share it.

Comments regarding hygiene hypothesis

You are not logged in user...

Please Log in or Register or post your as a guest

Top Most Pronounced Words

• getting dressed
• garciadiego
• gearanantranon
• gottaknowitall
• greaterillinois
• gunnerstein

Word of the day

American politician

Love learning a language? Share the love and Support US.

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Definition of hypothesis

Did you know.

The Difference Between Hypothesis and Theory

A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.

In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is usually tentative; it's an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.

A theory , in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory . Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, it is understood to be more likely to be true than a hypothesis is.

In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch, with theory being the more common choice.

Since this casual use does away with the distinctions upheld by the scientific community, hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories.

The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.)

This mistake is one of projection: since we use theory in general to mean something lightly speculated, then it's implied that scientists must be talking about the same level of uncertainty when they use theory to refer to their well-tested and reasoned principles.

The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was "a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said , a theory "doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”

While theories are never completely infallible, they form the basis of scientific reasoning because, as Miller said "to the best of our ability, we’ve tested them, and they’ve held up."

• proposition
• supposition

hypothesis , theory , law mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature.

hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation.

theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth.

law implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions.

Examples of hypothesis in a Sentence

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'hypothesis.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put — more at do

1641, in the meaning defined at sense 1a

Phrases Containing hypothesis

• counter - hypothesis
• nebular hypothesis
• null hypothesis
• planetesimal hypothesis
• Whorfian hypothesis

Articles Related to hypothesis

This is the Difference Between a...

This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory

In scientific reasoning, they're two completely different things

Dictionary Entries Near hypothesis

hypothermia

hypothesize

Cite this Entry

“Hypothesis.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis. Accessed 13 Sep. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of hypothesis, medical definition, medical definition of hypothesis, more from merriam-webster on hypothesis.

Nglish: Translation of hypothesis for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of hypothesis for Arabic Speakers

Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about hypothesis

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

Plural and possessive names: a guide, 31 useful rhetorical devices, more commonly misspelled words, absent letters that are heard anyway, how to use accents and diacritical marks, popular in wordplay, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, it's a scorcher words for the summer heat, 7 shakespearean insults to make life more interesting, 10 words from taylor swift songs (merriam's version), 9 superb owl words, games & quizzes.

• Pronunciation
• Try to pronounce
• Collections
• Translation

Learn how to pronounce hypotheses

• Very difficult

Show more fewer Voices

Have you finished your recording?

Phonetic spelling of hypotheses

hy-pothe-ses 0 rating rating ratings Private hy-pothe-ses 0 rating rating ratings Harold Jacobi hahy-poth-uh-sis 0 rating rating ratings Joaquin Parisian hy-po-theses 0 rating rating ratings Yolanda Pagac

Thanks for contributing

You are not logged in..

Please Log in or Register or post as a guest

Learn more about the word "hypotheses" , its origin, alternative forms, and usage from Wiktionary.

Quiz on hypotheses

{{ quiz.name }}

{{ quiz.questions_count }} Questions

Show more fewer Quiz

Collections on hypotheses

-{{collection.uname}}

Show more fewer Collections

Examples of in a sentence

Further, from an early period in his Medicinische Psychologie (1852) he reinforced the transcendental idealism of Kant by a general hypothesis of local signs, containing the subordinate hypotheses, that we cannot directly perceive extension either within ourselves or without; that spatial bodies 0 rating rating ratings Zandile Hlatshwayo

hypotheses should be in sentence

Translations of hypotheses

Show more fewer Translation

Add hypotheses details

hypotheses pronunciation with meanings, synonyms, antonyms, translations, sentences and more

The correct way to pronounce the word astana is, popular collections, manchester united players list 2020, spanish vocabulary, useful german travel phrases audio pronunciation, bayern munich squad / player list 2020-21, celebrities, popular quizzes.

Trending on HowToPronounce

• Reginald [en]
• Clontz [en]
• Mcdonough [en]
• Giuseppe [en]
• Gautam Adani [en]
• formula 1 [en]
• Valerie [en]
• Janine [en]
• louterion [en]
• Guillermo [en]
• Liderman [en]
• Muriel [en]
• Cardi B [en]

Word of the day

Latest word submissions, recently viewed words, flag word/pronunciation, create a quiz.