Advertisement

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Pearls

Pearls provide concise, practical and educational insights into topics that span the pathogens field.

See all article types »

Oo-No: Ophidiomyces ophidiicola-bacterial interactions and the role of skin lipids in development of ophidiomycosis

Citation: Dallas JW, Ghotbi M, Rurik AJ, King T, Rubin RT, Cummins C, et al. (2026) Oo-No: Ophidiomyces ophidiicola-bacterial interactions and the role of skin lipids in development of ophidiomycosis. PLoS Pathog 22(1): e1013875. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1013875

Editor: Mary Ann Jabra-Rizk, University of Maryland, Baltimore, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Published: January 23, 2026

Copyright: © 2026 Dallas et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This work was supported by National Science Foundation grants (EF-2125065 to DMW; NSF CAREER 2236580 to DMW) and the Molecular Biosciences Program at MTSU. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Emerging fungal pathogens pose a great risk to global biodiversity [1], and understanding how these pathogens interact with the host and their microbiomes could aid in disease mitigation and conservation efforts. In particular, fungal pathogens of the skin are prominent threats to population health. From Trichophyton indotineae in humans [2], Pseudogymnoascus destructans in bats [3,4], and Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in amphibians [5,6], fungal pathogens of the skin can have devastating effects on the host. The skin also harbors a complex microbiome that offers some degree of resistance against fungal pathogens [7,8], indicating its unique potential to mitigate the damage done by these emerging pathogens. Ophidiomyces ophidiicola (Oo), the causative agent of ophidiomycosis (commonly referred to as snake fungal disease SFD [9]), represents a unique avenue for exploring how snakes and their skin microbiomes respond to infection across multiple experimental scales (from highly controlled in vitro experiments to landscape-level surveys). Researchers have identified natural history patterns of snakes broadly associated with Oo susceptibility and behavioral alterations in afflicted individuals with potential consequences for population health [10,11]. Additionally, studies have elucidated interactions among the host microbiome, skin lipid profile, and Oo to identify mechanisms underpinning population-level patterns [12–15]. Snakes are highly cryptic, which makes long-term population management difficult. However, the emergence of ophidiomycosis threatens global snake populations and underpins the importance of better understanding the interactions among host skin, the microbiome, and a pathogen [16].

Biology and ecology of Ophidiomyces

As an environmental saprobe, Oo tolerates an extensive array of environmental conditions, including a wide range of pH (5–11) and temperature (7–35 °C), and can use varying complex carbon and nitrogen sources for continued growth [17,18]. In the environment, Oo likely persists in the soil, including in snake hibernacula, which may serve as an environmental reservoir for the fungus [17–19]. Oo-infected snakes have been recorded from North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia [18], and consist of three phylogenetically distinct pathogen clades [20]. Clade I is derived from strains collected from wild European snakes. Clade II has been found on wild snakes from North America, Europe, and Asia as well as some captive populations, while Clade III largely consists of strains from captive populations distributed globally but has recently been identified in wild Asian snakes [20–22]. Multiple clonal lineages have been identified within Clade II [20,23], and the relative lack of genetic intermediates between these lineages may be indicative of several introduction events of Oo to North America [20]. Ultimately, the exact origin of Oo is unknown, primarily due to historical data deficiencies [18,20]. In North America, infections of Oo initially gained awareness with reports of an outbreak in an Illinois population of eastern massasauga rattlesnakes (Sistrurus catenatus) in 2008 [24]. However, the use of preserved museum specimens resulted in the detection of Oo infections dating back to 1945 in the United States [25] and 1959 in Europe [26] highlighting the usefulness of historical materials in monitoring the long-term prevalence and evolutionary diversification of Oo. Patterns of SFD susceptibility across snake species suggest that more aquatic species tend to show higher infection rates [27–29]. In support, fox snakes (Pantherophis vulpinus) in wetter environments were more likely to be infected compared to those in drier environments, suggesting habitat-associated risk factors [30]. However, these patterns are not universally consistent, and broader phylogenetic analyses indicate that ophidiomycosis susceptibility is phylogenetically and ecologically dispersed, reflecting both random and habitat-specific exposure risks [31].

Impact of Ophidiomyces on snake survival, behavior, and physiology

Oo infections elicit an immune response which causes skin lesions that are often accompanied by a higher frequency of ecdysis in an attempt to clear the infection [9,28]. Over time, infections can progress into ophidiomycosis with lesions becoming larger and, if located on the head, may impair vision, olfaction, and infrared sensing, reducing foraging efficiency [9,32]. Evidence suggests ophidiomycosis is a chronic condition in which afflicted snakes succumb to secondary complications related to the infection rather than direct mortality by Oo [32,33]. Ophidiomycosis can also prompt “risky” behaviors, such as premature emergence from hibernacula and increased activity in exposed microhabitats, both of which are attempts to raise body temperature for combating infection but leave the infected snakes vulnerable to predation [28,32,34].

Physiological processes may be disrupted by Oo. Snakes with clinical signs exhibit lower reproductive hormone levels during critical breeding periods, negatively impacting reproductive success [35,36]. Additionally, infected snakes show an altered stress response, with elevated corticosterone levels across the year indicative of increased allostatic load [37]. Oo infection also increases evaporative water loss and metabolic rate, placing additional strain on the energy reserves of affected animals [38–40]. Collectively, these findings highlight that Oo imposes energetic costs on snakes, which may have population-level effects, although further experimental research is required to better model population responses.

The host skin interface: Interactions between Ophidiomyces and skin microbiome

The interaction between host skin chemistry and Oo pathogenicity is a fundamental aspect largely ignored to date. While snake skin is composed of both alpha- and beta-keratin [41], which Oo can readily metabolize through a suite of enzymatic activity [42], snakes also harbor a complex lipid profile that is produced de novo by the skin [43]. Skin lipids aid in limiting evaporative water loss [44], intraspecific communication [45–47], and pathogen resistance [48]. Since skin lipid profiles exhibit inter- and intraspecific variation [49,50], the observed species-level differences in susceptibility to Oo may be underpinned in part by skin chemistry (Fig 1).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Key trends in Ophidiomyces ophidiicola (Oo) pathogen-induced dysbiosis and alteration of the snake skin environment.

Blue and yellow arrows indicate increases and decreases, respectively, in host and bacterial characteristics before and after Oo establishment on snake skin. The shifts in host and bacterial characteristics during Oo colonization are modulated by bidirectional interactions among snake skin, the lipid profile, the skin microbiome, and Oo. The white arrow in the upper right image identifies an Oo lesion of an infected individual. The center image shows a scanning electron microscope image (taken by Misael Avalos Madera) of the interaction between Oo hyphae and bacteria in vitro. The healthy skin image was used with permission by Brian Miller while the image depicting dysbiosis was used with permission by Cody Godwin.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1013875.g001

Lipids extracted from both shed and dissected skins from wild snakes have a suppressive effect on Oo growth despite host phylogenetic diversity and differences in natural histories [12]. This suppressive effect is likely a result of the limited capacity of the fungus to effectively metabolize high concentrations of lipids. In vitro Oo growth assays revealed that, even after supplementation of agar with growth-promoting keratin, common skin lipids on snakes [50–52] like oleic acid and squalene, suppressed the growth of the pathogen at high concentrations [12]. However, the presence of cholesterol in growth media did not inhibit Oo, illustrating the complex interplay between the most abundant sterol found in snake skin [53], different classes of skin lipids, and Oo growth [12].

Microbiome dysbiosis (disturbance) results in predictable changes in both the richness and structure of the snake skin microbiome and may have a negative impact on microbial function [54–56]. Similar dysbiotic trends in the microbiome were observed across two major experimental scales, including wild-caught snakes on the landscape, and live animal inoculation experiments [14,15,57]. Microbial function via metagenomic sequencing, was also shown to differ with biosynthetic gene clusters for flexirubin and fulvivirgamide unique to the microbiomes of Oo-negative snakes, which may aid in Oo inhibition [12]. Oo-induced shifts in the metabolic niche space are characterized as pathogen-induced dysbiosis (PID) and may have broad-reaching conservation implications if PID results in a loss of beneficial bacteria, enabling colonization of other opportunistic pathogens (Fig 1).

During pathogenic invasion of the skin, Oo must navigate the complex interface of skin lipids, a host immune response, and the microbiome. The host microbiome is known to be an important component in pathogen resistance [58,59] and bacterial taxa isolated from snake skin, including Aeromonas sp. and Stenotrophomonas sp., were observed to exhibit strong Oo-inhibitory effects in vitro [13]. These taxa were also identified in Oo-negative snakes on the landscape [14], suggesting that certain bacteria may provide a protective role against Oo pathogenicity through competitive exclusion, or the production of antifungal metabolites [12] that extend beyond the host’s innate and adaptive immune response. Co-culture experiments with Chryseobacterium sp. and Oo resulted in fungal growth suppression and bacterial growth facilitation suggesting that Oo metabolites alter the growth of certain bacterial members of the microbiome. Similarly, in spent media (cell-free supernatant) experiments, Oo facilitated growth of numerous taxa in the microbiome, and Chryseobacterium sp. and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia suppressed Oo growth likely due to bacterial cross-feeding [12]. The complex interactions between the skin microbiome and Oo, in both a direct and indirect manner, suggest resident microbes may protect the host against ophidiomycosis. Efforts to identify which bacterial-derived metabolites restrict Oo growth are important next steps in understanding bacterial-fungal interactions in a disease context.

Future directions

Research progress on this relatively newly described wildlife disease has improved understanding of Oo biology and its impacts on snake physiology and health. Currently, there is limited research on the regional and continental distribution of Oo across the Global South [18]. Many of these regions have high snake biodiversity, underscoring a need for expanding ongoing surveillance efforts to understand pathogen prevalence and impact on understudied populations. Additionally, the environmental persistence and long-term reservoirs of Oo are understudied [19,60,61], yet are critical for monitoring and managing wildlife diseases. Linking landscape-level studies and experimental investigations of host-bacterial-fungal interactions will provide a more comprehensive understanding of how snakes respond to an emerging fungal pathogen and improve efforts in species conservation.

Acknowledgments

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. 1. Fisher MC, Gurr SJ, Cuomo CA, Blehert DS, Jin H, Stukenbrock EH, et al. Threats posed by the fungal kingdom to humans, wildlife, and agriculture. mBio. 2020;11(3):e00449-20. pmid:32371596
  2. 2. Chowdhary A, Singh A, Kaur A, Khurana A. The emergence and worldwide spread of the species causing difficult-to-treat dermatophytosis: a new challenge in the management of dermatophytosis. PLoS Pathog. 2022;18(9):e1010795. pmid:36173977
  3. 3. Blehert DS. Fungal disease and the developing story of bat white-nose syndrome. PLoS Pathog. 2012;8(7):e1002779. pmid:22829763
  4. 4. Hoyt JR, Kilpatrick AM, Langwig KE. Ecology and impacts of white-nose syndrome on bats. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;19(3):196–210. pmid:33462478
  5. 5. Rosenblum EB, Voyles J, Poorten TJ, Stajich JE. The deadly chytrid fungus: a story of an emerging pathogen. PLoS Pathog. 2010;6(1):e1000550. pmid:20126439
  6. 6. Luedtke JA, Chanson J, Neam K, Hobin L, Maciel AO, Catenazzi A, et al. Ongoing declines for the world’s amphibians in the face of emerging threats. Nature. 2023;622(7982):308–14. pmid:37794184
  7. 7. Bates KA, Sommer U, Hopkins KP, Shelton JMG, Wierzbicki C, Sergeant C, et al. Microbiome function predicts amphibian chytridiomycosis disease dynamics. Microbiome. 2022;10(1):44. pmid:35272699
  8. 8. Cheng TL, Mayberry H, McGuire LP, Hoyt JR, Langwig KE, Nguyen H, et al. Efficacy of a probiotic bacterium to treat bats affected by the disease white-nose syndrome. J Appl Ecol. 2016;54(3):701–8.
  9. 9. Lorch JM, Lankton J, Werner K, Falendysz EA, McCurley K, Blehert DS. Experimental infection of snakes with Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola causes pathological changes that typify snake fungal disease. mBio. 2015;6(6):e01534-15. pmid:26578676
  10. 10. Clark RW, Marchand MN, Clifford BJ, Stechert R, Stephens S. Decline of an isolated timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) population: Interactions between climate change, disease, and loss of genetic diversity. Biol Conserv. 2011;144(2):886–91.
  11. 11. Gray ER, Wilkinson SL, Miller MC, Wilkinson W, Adams C, Ebert S, et al. An emergent disease reduces survival of mature female eastern diamondback rattlesnakes (Crotalus adamanteus), a key demographic for a slow-lived species. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):37252. pmid:41136559
  12. 12. Murphy KM, Dallas JW, Ghotbi M, Vargas-Gastélum L, Van Moorleghem C, Phillips JL, et al. Skin lipid chemistry influences host-microbiome-pathogen interactions in snake fungal disease (ophidiomycosis). bioRxiv; 2025.
  13. 13. Hill AJ, Leys JE, Bryan D, Erdman FM, Malone KS, Russell GN, et al. Common cutaneous bacteria isolated from snakes inhibit growth of Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola. Ecohealth. 2018;15(1):109–20. pmid:29134436
  14. 14. Romer AS, Grisnik M, Dallas JW, Sutton W, Murray CM, Hardman RH, et al. Effects of snake fungal disease (ophidiomycosis) on the skin microbiome across two major experimental scales. Conserv Biol. 2025;39(2):e14411. pmid:39530499
  15. 15. Allender MC, Baker S, Britton M, Kent AD. Snake fungal disease alters skin bacterial and fungal diversity in an endangered rattlesnake. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):12147. pmid:30108369
  16. 16. Schilliger L, Paillusseau C, François C, Bonwitt J. Major emerging fungal diseases of reptiles and amphibians. Pathogens. 2023;12(3):429. pmid:36986351
  17. 17. Allender MC, Raudabaugh DB, Gleason FH, Miller AN. The natural history, ecology, and epidemiology of Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola and its potential impact on free-ranging snake populations. Fungal Ecol. 2015;17:187–96.
  18. 18. Di Nicola MR, Coppari L, Notomista T, Marini D. Ophidiomyces ophidiicola detection and infection: a global review on a potential threat to the world’s snake populations. Eur J Wildl Res. 2022;68(5).
  19. 19. Campbell LJ, Burger J, Zappalorti RT, Bunnell JF, Winzeler ME, Taylor DR, et al. Soil reservoir dynamics of Ophidiomyces ophidiicola, the causative agent of snake fungal disease. J Fungi (Basel). 2021;7(6):461. pmid:34201162
  20. 20. Ladner JT, Palmer JM, Ettinger CL, Stajich JE, Farrell TM, Glorioso BM, et al. The population genetics of the causative agent of snake fungal disease indicate recent introductions to the USA. PLoS Biol. 2022;20(6):e3001676. pmid:35737674
  21. 21. Di Nicola MR, Mulder KP, Verbrugghe E, Storniolo F, Terriere N, Colla L, et al. Nationwide screening unveils endemic Ophidiomyces ophidiicola presence in northern italy, mainly affecting dice snakes: evidence from contemporary and historical snake samples. J Fungi (Basel). 2025;11(2):118. pmid:39997412
  22. 22. Sun P-L, Yang C-K, Li W-T, Lai W-Y, Fan Y-C, Huang H-C, et al. Infection with Nannizziopsis guarroi and Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola in reptiles in Taiwan. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2022;69(2):764–75. pmid:33638294
  23. 23. Haynes E, Lorch J, Allender MC. Development and application of a qPCR-based genotyping assay for Ophidiomyces ophidiicola to investigate the epidemiology of ophidiomycosis. PLoS One. 2023;18(8):e0289159. pmid:37535588
  24. 24. Allender MC, Dreslik M, Wylie S, Phillips C, Wylie DB, Maddox C, et al. Chrysosporium sp. infection in eastern massasauga rattlesnakes. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17(12):2383–4. pmid:22172594
  25. 25. Lorch JM, Price SJ, Lankton JS, Drayer AN. Confirmed cases of ophidiomycosis in museum specimens from as early as 1945, United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27(7):1986–9. pmid:34152968
  26. 26. Origgi FC, Pisano SRR, Glaizot O, Hertwig ST, Schmitz A, Ursenbacher S. Ophiodimyces ophiodiicola, etiologic agent of snake fungal disease, in Europe since Late 1950s. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022;28(10):2064–8. pmid:36148931
  27. 27. Blanvillain G, Lorch JM, Joudrier N, Bury S, Cuenot T, Franzen M, et al. Contribution of host species and pathogen clade to snake fungal disease hotspots in Europe. Commun Biol. 2024;7(1):440. pmid:38600171
  28. 28. Tetzlaff SJ, Ravesi MJ, Allender MC, Carter ET, DeGregorio BA, Josimovich JM, et al. Snake fungal disease affects behavior of free-ranging massasauga rattlesnakes (Sistrurus catenatus). Herpetol Conserv Biol. 2017;12:624–634.
  29. 29. Haynes E, Chandler HC, Stegenga BS, Adamovicz L, Ospina E, Zerpa-Catanho D, et al. Ophidiomycosis surveillance of snakes in Georgia, USA reveals new host species and taxonomic associations with disease. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):10870. pmid:32616837
  30. 30. Dillon RM, Paterson JE, Manorome P, Ritchie K, Shirose L, Slavik E, et al. Seasonal and interspecific variation in the prevalence of Ophidiomyces ophidiicola and ophidiomycosis in a community of free-ranging snakes. J Wildl Dis. 2022;58(4):791–802. pmid:36240744
  31. 31. Burbrink FT, Lorch JM, Lips KR. Host susceptibility to snake fungal disease is highly dispersed across phylogenetic and functional trait space. Sci Adv. 2017;3(12):e1701387. pmid:29291245
  32. 32. Lorch JM, Knowles S, Lankton JS, Michell K, Edwards JL, Kapfer JM, et al. Snake fungal disease: an emerging threat to wild snakes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016;371(1709):20150457. pmid:28080983
  33. 33. Lind CM, McCoy CM, Farrell TM. Tracking outcomes of snake fungal disease in free-ranging pygmy rattlesnakes (Sistrurus miliarius). J Wildl Dis. 2018;54(2):352–6. pmid:29377750
  34. 34. McBride MP, Wojick KB, Georoff TA, Kimbro J, Garner MM, Wang X, et al. Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola dermatitis in eight free-ranging timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus) from Massachusetts. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2015;46(1):86–94. pmid:25993746
  35. 35. Lind C, Moore IT, Akçay Ç, Vernasco BJ, Lorch JM, Farrell TM. Patterns of circulating corticosterone in a population of rattlesnakes afflicted with snake fungal disease: stress hormones as a potential mediator of seasonal cycles in disease severity and outcomes. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2018;91(2):765–75. pmid:29286254
  36. 36. Lind CM, Moore IT, Vernasco BJ, Farrell TM. Seasonal testosterone and corticosterone patterns in relation to body condition and reproduction in a subtropical pitviper, Sistrurus miliarius. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2018;267:51–8. pmid:29807034
  37. 37. Lind CM, Agugliaro J, Lorch JM, Farrell TM. Ophidiomycosis is related to seasonal patterns of reproduction, ecdysis, and thermoregulatory behavior in a free-living snake species. J Zool. 2022;319(1):54–62.
  38. 38. Lutterschmidt DI, Mason RT. A serotonin receptor antagonist, but not melatonin, modulates hormonal responses to capture stress in two populations of garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis and Thamnophis sirtalis concinnus). Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2005;141(3):259–70. pmid:15804513
  39. 39. Agugliaro J, Lind CM, Lorch JM, Farrell TM. An emerging fungal pathogen is associated with increased resting metabolic rate and total evaporative water loss rate in a winter-active snake. Funct Ecol. 2019;34(2):486–96.
  40. 40. Lind CM, Agugliaro J, Farrell TM. The metabolic response to an immune challenge in a viviparous snake, Sistrurus miliarius. J Exp Biol. 2020;223(Pt 10):jeb225185. pmid:32321747
  41. 41. Alibardi L. Adaptation to the land: The skin of reptiles in comparison to that of amphibians and endotherm amniotes. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol. 2003;298(1):12–41. pmid:12949767
  42. 42. Mercer DK, Stewart CS. Keratin hydrolysis by dermatophytes. Med Mycol. 2019;57(1):13–22. pmid:29361043
  43. 43. Menon GK, Feingold KR, Moser AH, Brown BE, Elias PM. De novo sterologenesis in the skin. II. Regulation by cutaneous barrier requirements. J Lipid Res. 1985;26(4):418–27.
  44. 44. Lillywhite HB. Water relations of tetrapod integument. J Exp Biol. 2006;209(Pt 2):202–26. pmid:16391344
  45. 45. Mason RT, Fales HM, Jones TH, Pannell LK, Chinn JW, Crews D. Sex pheromones in snakes. Science. 1989;245(4915):290–3. pmid:2749261
  46. 46. Mason RT, Parker MR. Social behavior and pheromonal communication in reptiles. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2010;196(10):729–49. pmid:20585786
  47. 47. Clark RW. Public information for solitary foragers: timber rattlesnakes use conspecific chemical cues to select ambush sites. Behav Ecol. 2007;18(2):487–90.
  48. 48. Drake DR, Brogden KA, Dawson DV, Wertz PW. Thematic review series: skin lipids. Antimicrobial lipids at the skin surface. J Lipid Res. 2008;49(1):4–11. pmid:17906220
  49. 49. Mason RT. Chemical ecology of the red-sided garter snake, Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis. Brain Behav Evol. 1993;41(3–5):261–8. pmid:8477349
  50. 50. Torri C, Mangoni A, Teta R, Fattorusso E, Alibardi L, Fermani S, et al. Skin lipid structure controls water permeability in snake molts. J Struct Biol. 2014;185(1):99–106. pmid:24157843
  51. 51. Andonov K, Dyugmedzhiev A, Lukanov S, Slavchev M, Vacheva E, Stanchev N, et al. Analyses of skin secretions of Vipera ammodytes (Linnaeus, 1758) (Reptilia: Serpentes), with focus on the complex compounds and their possible role in the chemical communication. Molecules. 2020;25(16):3622. pmid:32784906
  52. 52. Ball JC. The first shed skin of neonate corn snakes is chemically different from adult shed skins. J Herpetol. 2004;38(1):124–7.
  53. 53. Andonov K, Dyugmedzhiev A, Lukanov S, Vacheva E, Duhalov D, Nedeltcheva-Antonova D, et al. Chemical map of skin secretions in old-world snakes. Biochem Syst Ecol. 2023;110:104713.
  54. 54. Petersen C, Round JL. Defining dysbiosis and its influence on host immunity and disease. Cell Microbiol. 2014;16(7):1024–33. pmid:24798552
  55. 55. Zaneveld JR, McMinds R, Vega Thurber R. Stress and stability: applying the Anna Karenina principle to animal microbiomes. Nat Microbiol. 2017;2:17121. pmid:28836573
  56. 56. Woodhams DC, McCartney J, Walke JB, Whetstone R. The adaptive microbiome hypothesis and immune interactions in amphibian mucus. Dev Comp Immunol. 2023;145:104690. pmid:37001710
  57. 57. Romer AS, Grinath JB, Moe KC, Walker DM. Host microbiome responses to the Snake Fungal Disease pathogen (Ophidiomyces ophidiicola) are driven by changes in microbial richness. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):3078. pmid:35197501
  58. 58. Spragge F, Bakkeren E, Jahn MT, B N Araujo E, Pearson CF, Wang X, et al. Microbiome diversity protects against pathogens by nutrient blocking. Science. 2023;382(6676):eadj3502. pmid:38096285
  59. 59. Kamada N, Seo S-U, Chen GY, Núñez G. Role of the gut microbiota in immunity and inflammatory disease. Nat Rev Immunol. 2013;13(5):321–35. pmid:23618829
  60. 60. Friedeman N, Carter E, Kingsbury BA, Ravesi MJ, Josimovich JM, Matthews M, et al. Environmental associations of Ophidiomyces ophidiicola, the causative agent of ophidiomycosis in snakes. PLoS One. 2024;19(10):e0310954. pmid:39436883
  61. 61. Burger J, Gochfeld M, Zappalorti R, Bunnell J, Jeitner C, Schneider D, et al. Prevalence of Ophidiomyces ophidiicola and epizootiology of snake fungal disease in free-ranging Northern Pine Snakes (Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus) in New Jersey. Environ Monit Assess. 2023;195(6):662. pmid:37169998