Mercury

Overview

Mercury shapes microbial pathogenesis by exerting toxic selective pressure that enriches heavy-metal-resistant and multidrug-resistant organisms.^[1] The principal host niche is the gut, where dietary and environmental mercury exposures shape microbial selection, mercury transformation capacity, and co-selection for antimicrobial resistance; oral cavity effects are most relevant only when dental amalgam contributes appreciable salivary mercury.^[2][3] Clinically, the most actionable leverage point is recognizing and reducing mercury exposure to protect the microbiome and prevent co-selection of antibiotic resistance.^[4] Even subclinical mercury levels can disrupt the microbiome’s balance and resilience, underscoring the importance of exposure history in infection risk management.

Chemical speciation across host niches

In saliva, mercury reflects mixed inputs (dietary methylmercury plus inhaled/ingested inorganic forms): the dominant bioactive pool is Hg(II) bound to low–molecular weight thiols (cysteine, glutathione) and thiol-rich proteins, with amalgam-related release only relevant when present rather than assumed for all hosts.^[5] In the gastric lumen, inorganic Hg(II) is stabilized as chloride complexes (for example mercuric chloride–like speciation) and protein binding is reduced, while methylmercury remains largely as thiol S-conjugates.^[6][7] In the small intestine, CH₃Hg–cysteine and related thiol conjugates dominate and behave as methionine mimics for uptake pathways, supporting high absorption.^[8][9] In blood, most Hg(II) is buffered by albumin and small thiols, while methylmercury circulates predominantly as thiol conjugates.^[10] Urine contains mainly inorganic Hg(II) as thiol complexes during renal clearance.

Microbial acquisition, regulation, and nutritional immunity

Pathogens acquire and buffer mercury using importers, regulators, chaperones, storage, and efflux systems. Specialized Hg importers actively uptake Hg²⁺ for detoxification. Mercury-responsive regulators (MerR family) sense cytosolic Hg²⁺ and induce operons, while accessory MerD proteins fine-tune the response. Because Hg confers toxicity not nutrition, hosts do not supply it; instead, microbes strictly regulate mercury-handling operons to mitigate damage.^[11]

Metal toolkit

Component class	Canonical systems and function
Importer	MerT membrane transporter – imports Hg2+ + for detox.[12]
Regulator	MerR transcriptional activator – Hg2+-sensing regulator induces mer genes.[13]
Chaperone	MerP periplasmic protein – binds Hg2+ and delivers to MerT. [14]
Storage	Metallothionein-like peptides – some bacteria use thiol-rich proteins or poly-thiols to sequester Hg (e.g. Bacillus produces bacillithiol-Hg complexes).[15]
Efflux	MerA mercuric reductase – reduces Hg2+ to Hg0 for passive efflux (e.g. merA in Staphylococcus aureus plasmid conferring high Hg tolerance).[16]

Host sequestration

Host proteins including metallothioneins and albumin tightly bind mercury, restricting its free concentration and thereby limiting microbial enzyme damage.^[17] Metallothionein (MT) in host cells has femtomolar affinity for Hg²⁺ (via its numerous –SH groups), effectively sequestering the metal. This MT binding limits Hg²⁺ available to interact with microbial enzymes, reducing enzyme mismetallation and growth inhibition.^[18] Similarly, glutathione (GSH), a ubiquitous host thiol, forms Hg–SG complexes that trap Hg^²⁺ in tissues, altering mercury’s distribution away from microbes.^[19] Albumin and other plasma thiol-proteins (e.g. hemoglobin) also scavenge Hg²⁺, which can protect bacteria in blood by reducing mercury’s direct toxicity.^[20] However, these host sequestration processes can alter normal metal homeostasis; for example, MT binding of Hg may displace Zn²⁺ and indirectly affect zinc-dependent microbial processes. The net effect is that host heavy metal buffers modulate mercury’s microbial impact, often acting as a form of ‘toxic nutritional immunity’ that limits mercury-induced microbial dysfunction.

Host sequestration map

Host factor	Microbial consequence for metal-dependent enzymes or growth
Metallothionein (MT)	Sequesters Hg2+ in host cells – lowers free Hg available to microbes, preventing Hg from inactivating bacterial metalloenzymes.[21] Also may strip Zn from MT, but overall protects commensals from Hg toxicity.[22]
Glutathione (GSH)	Abundant thiol that binds Hg2+ (forming Hg–GSH), reduces Hg2+ diffusion and shields microbial enzymes.[23]
Albumin (plasma)	Binds circulating Hg2+, limiting blood-borne mercury exposure to pathogens and reducing Hg-induced enzyme inhibition in bacteria during bacteremia.[24]
Selenium (Se) proteins	Host selenoproteins (e.g., GPx, TrxR) can capture Hg via Se–Hg bonds, lowering Hg2+ available to gut microbes.[25]

Metallophores and community competition

Secreted chelators such as microbial sulfide (H₂S) shift competition by converting mercury into inert forms. For example, sulfate-reducing bacteria release H₂S that precipitates Hg²⁺ as HgS, effectively removing mercury from the environment and giving H₂S-producers a survival advantage under mercury stress.^[26] This communal detoxification can protect both the producer and neighboring microbes from mercury’s toxicity, reshaping community composition. In mixed communities, bacteria harboring the mer operon can also volatilize Hg⁰, reducing local mercury and indirectly benefiting more sensitive species. Inflammation cues increase these dynamics: inflammatory oxidative stress mobilizes tissue-bound Hg, triggering bacteria to upregulate metal-binding and detox pathways. During host inflammation, mercury stress responses (e.g. MerR-regulated chelator production) are heightened, which can intensify interspecies competition for safe niches.

Mismetallation and cross-metal crosstalk

When mercury rises relative to essential metals, enzymes in several families mis-bind Hg, producing loss-of-function and toxicity. For example, when Hg²⁺ exceeds Zn²⁺ locally, Zn-dependent enzymes (like dehydrogenases and proteases) may incorporate Hg in place of Zn or bind Hg to critical cysteine/histidine sites, causing irreversible inactivation.^[27] Mercury’s high affinity for thiol (–SH) and selenol (–SeH) groups means it can displace native metal cofactors or block active sites directly.^[28] Selenoproteins in microbes are particularly at risk: Hg binding to the SeH group halts activity, leading to oxidative stress. Similarly, Hg can bind iron–sulfur cluster enzymes, ejecting Fe and collapsing cluster structure.

Mismetallation map

At-risk enzyme class	Likely wrong-metal outcome
Zn-dependent enzymes	Hg2+ displaces Zn in metalloenzymes (e.g. Zn-proteases, alcohol dehydrogenase), binding to cysteine/histidine sites and inactivating the enzyme.[29]
Selenoenzymes	Mercury binds selenocysteine (–SeH) in enzymes (e.g. formate dehydrogenase), blocking activity. Wrong-metal binding produces oxidative stress and growth defects in anaerobes.[30] Selenium supplementation forms Hg–Se sequestered complexes, protecting these enzymes.
Fe–S cluster enzymes	Hg2+ coordinates with sulfide ligands in [Fe–S] clusters, causing cluster loss and enzyme dysfunction (similar to oxidative insult).[31]

Virulence pathway mapping

In certain pathogens, mercury exposure intersects with virulence regulatory pathways. For example, in Staphylococcus aureus (USA300 strain), sub-inhibitory mercury was shown to support increased expression of virulence regulators and toxins, driving heightened virulence potential.^[32] This heavy-metal stress can activate global responses (like sigma factors or two-component systems) that also control virulence genes. Mercury contamination is also known to activate efflux pumps in bacteria, some of which expel antibiotics and toxic compounds; this activation might increase fitness and invasiveness of pathogens in heavy-metal environments.^[33] Clinically, a notable leverage point is targeting these adaptive systems. For instance, inhibiting the MerA mercuric reductase in a wound pathogen could render it susceptible to topical mercurials, reducing infection persistence. Likewise, blocking broad efflux pumps or stress responses induced by mercury can attenuate a pathogen’s virulence under metal stress. By identifying mercury-linked virulence nodes (such as metal-responsive regulators), we can design microbiome-based therapeutics to disarm pathogens.

Exposure to microbiome outcomes

At low-level mercury exposure, human studies report subtle shifts in gut microbiota composition without overt dysbiosis. At higher chronic exposures – for instance, populations with elevated methylmercury intake from fish (hair Hg >2 μg g^-1) – the microbiome adapts by enriching mercury-tolerant taxa and functions.^[34] In residents of mercury-contaminated areas, gut communities show increased abundance of sulfate-reducing bacteria (Desulfovibrio spp.) and methanogens that can demethylate mercury, alongside higher mer operon gene prevalence.^[35] These changes correlate with altered metabolites (e.g. more sulfide, which precipitates Hg) and potential barrier effects such as minor inflammation. The most consistent signal is an expansion of the resistome: even at environmentally relevant Hg levels, the diversity and abundance of antibiotic resistance genes climb in the microbiome, driven by co-selection.^[36] Additionally, heavy mercury burden is associated with reduced overall microbial diversity and a shift in community structure.^[37]

Exposure thresholds to selection signals

Exposure or concentration range	Observed microbiome selection signal
Elevated fish consumption	Enrichment of Hg-demethylating gut bacteria (e.g. more Desulfovibrio) and genes; slight decrease in diversity.[38]
High endemic exposure	Shift to Hg-tolerant community: notably increased mer operon gene abundance and Hg-resistance plasmids; expansion of antibiotic resistome (multi-resistant flora).[39]
Dental amalgam carriers	Fecal microbiota contain higher proportion of Hg-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and co-resistant genes.[40] Oral microbiome shows increased mercury-reducers.
Occupational Hg exposure	Pronounced resistome expansion: gut bacteria harbor mercury and metal resistance operons linked with MDR genes.[41]

Antimicrobial resistance co-selection

Chronic mercury exposure co-selects for antibiotic resistance via both co-resistance and cross-resistance mechanisms. Co-resistance arises from linked genes: mercury resistance (mer operons) often resides on the same plasmids or transposons as antibiotic resistance genes, so mercury pressure enriches bacteria carrying both.^[42] Classic examples include the Tn21 integron family, where a mer module and multiple drug-resistance cassettes (e.g. for sulfonamides, tetracyclines) are physically coupled; environmental Hg pollution or dental mercury release thus maintains a reservoir of multidrug-resistant bacteria.^[43] This co-selection persists even after mercury exposure decreases, since the genetic linkage ensures survival advantage under prior Hg selects for antibiotic resistance traits long term.^[44] Cross-resistance is also observed: mercury stress can induce regulons and efflux pumps that expel antibiotics or increase mutagenesis, thereby elevating drug tolerance.^[45] For instance, low-level Hg^2+ was shown to facilitate horizontal transfer of antibiotic resistance plasmids in microbial communities.^[46] Co-regulation plays a role as well – some bacterial two-component systems respond to both heavy metals and antibiotics, leading to synchronized resistance phenotypes. In summary, mercury acts as a persistent selector of resistant microbiomes, and heavy-metal contamination is now recognized as a driver of the resistome expansion in both environmental and gut settings.

Assays and decision use

Clinicians and researchers use both metal assays and microbiome analyses to inform decisions on mercury-related interventions. A primary test is total mercury in whole blood.^[47] Urine mercury levels assess the inorganic Hg burden, guiding whether to initiate chelation therapy or remove the exposure.^[48] Hair mercury analysis provides a timeline of methylmercury intake; clinicians use it to evaluate chronic dietary MeHg in fish-eaters and advise dietary changes if hair Hg >1 μg g^-1 (especially in pregnant patients).^[49] For the microbiome, stool metagenomic sequencing can be employed: sequencing of 16S rRNA or shotgun DNA from fecal samples can detect an enrichment of mer operon genes or shifts in microbial composition under mercury exposure.^[50]

Assays to decision use

Assay and specimen	Decision use
Whole blood total Hg (ICP-MS)	Screens systemic load. If >5 μg L^-1 (above reference), investigate exposure (diet, amalgams) and consider intervention.[51]
24h urine mercury	Measures inorganic Hg excretion. >20 μg L^-1 is high – indicates significant exposure or poor clearance.[52]
Hair mercury	Reflects chronic MeHg intake. E.g. >1 μg g^-1 in hair (especially maternal) signals excess fish/seafood consumption. [53]
Fecal microbiome sequencing (stool DNA)	Detects microbiome alterations: e.g. increased mer genes or Hg-resistant taxa.[54]

Body-site biogeography

At body sites, mercury’s most consistent microbiome impact is in the colon, where anaerobes transform Hg and mercury pressure selects for detox and resistance functions, sometimes tracking with bowel habit changes at higher exposures.^[55] The oral cavity is mainly relevant when dental amalgam or inhalational exposure elevates salivary Hg, potentially enriching mercury-tolerant oral taxa and correlating with local irritation symptoms.^[56] In the stomach and small intestine, mercury is largely a transit or absorption problem (especially methylmercury), with limited resident microbiome interaction and few site-specific clinical signs.^[57] In blood and urine, mercury is best treated as a systemic exposure and excretion biomarker that can modulate host immunity more than local microbiota, while wound settings are chiefly relevant when mercurial antiseptics or contaminated environments select for mer-operon carriers and hard-to-clear infection.^[58]

MBTIs and clinical strategies

Microbiome-targeted interventions (MBTIs) for mercury aim to reduce bioavailable Hg in the gut and blunt selection for detox and resistance traits.^[59] Approaches include engineered probiotics that transform organomercury, selenium co-strategies that sequester Hg into inert complexes, and pairing chelation with gut binders (fiber or sorbents) to drive fecal elimination.^[60] Diet-based binders are lower-intensity options with emerging evidence, while phage or plasmid-curing concepts are experimental tools to reduce mer-linked co-selection of antibiotic resistance.

Intervention to expected microbial effect

Intervention	Expected microbial
Engineered mercury-detox probiotic	Live bacteria given orally will convert toxic Hg2+/MeHg into non-absorbable forms in the gut.[61]
Selenium supplementation	Oral Se (e.g. selenomethionine) to promote Hg–Se complex formation. Effect: Hg is sequestered as inert HgSe, protecting both host selenoproteins and microbial enzymes.[62] This can reduce Hg available to gut microbes, mitigating dysbiosis.
Thiol chelation therapy (DMPS/DMSA)	Systemic chelators with some gut action bind Hg2+ and MeHg, forming soluble complexes.[63]
Dietary fiber and binders	High-fiber diet or supplements (modified citrus pectin, chlorella algae) in the gut bind metals, decreasing its free form.[64]

Knowledge gaps and priorities

Key uncertainties include the precise role of the human microbiome in mercury methylation and detoxification. While dedicated Hg-methylating genes (hgcA/B) are largely absent in mammalian gut microbiomes, it remains unclear which gut microbes (if any) contribute significantly to mercury transformation in vivo and how this impacts host mercury burden.^[65] Another gap is defining the exposure threshold at which mercury induces clinically relevant microbiome changes,^[66] current evidence links high exposures to dysbiosis and resistome expansion, but low-level effects and their implications for diseases are not well quantified. A third uncertainty is the long-term efficacy and safety of microbiome-targeted mercury interventions (like engineered probiotics or dietary binders) in humans: their impact on mercury kinetics and on the broader microbial community needs rigorous clinical trials. Experimental trials of MBTIs (e.g. a probiotic or selenium co-supplementation in a fish-eating population) are needed to observe real-world outcomes on mercury levels and microbiome function. Additionally, monitoring the dynamics of mercury and co-selected antibiotic resistance genes in the microbiome over time (before and after intervention) is crucial to determine if reducing mercury exposure indeed contracts the resistome. Addressing these gaps will inform evidence-based guidelines and unlock microbiome-centric strategies for managing heavy metal exposure in clinical practice.

Research Feed

Update History

References

1. The interplay between antimicrobial resistance, heavy metal pollution, and the role of microplastics.. Balta, I., Lemon, J., Gadaj, A., Cretescu, I., Stef, D., Pet, I., Stef, L., McCleery, D., Douglas, A., & Corcionivoschi, N. (2025).. (Frontiers in Microbiology, 16, 1550587.)
2. Gut as the target tissue of mercury and the extraintestinal effects.. Tian, X., Lin, X., Zhao, J., Cui, L., Gao, Y., Yu, Y., Li, B., & Li, Y. (2023).. (Toxicology, 484, 153396.)
3. Exposure to mercury from dental amalgam: actual contribution for risk assessment.. Tuček M, Bušová M, Čejchanová M, Schlenker A, Kapitán M.. (Cent Eur J Public Health. 2020 Mar;28(1):40-43.)
4. Environmentally relevant concentrations of mercury facilitate the horizontal transfer of plasmid-mediated antibiotic resistance genes.. Li, W., Zhang, W., Zhang, M., Lei, Z., Li, P., Ma, Y., & Gao, Y. (2022).. (Science of The Total Environment, 852, 158272.)
5. TRANSPORT OF INORGANIC MERCURY AND METHYLMERCURY IN TARGET TISSUES AND ORGANS.. Bridges, C. C., & Zalups, R. K. (2010).. (Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part B, Critical Reviews, 13(5), 385.)
6. New insights into the metabolism of organomercury compounds: Mercury-containing cysteine S-conjugates are substrates of human glutamine transaminase K and potent inactivators of cystathionine γ-lyase.. Bridges, C. C., Krasnikov, B. F., Joshee, L., Pinto, J. T., Hallen, A., Li, J., Zalups, R. K., & Cooper, A. J. (2012).. (Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 517(1), 20-29.)
7. TRANSPORT OF INORGANIC MERCURY AND METHYLMERCURY IN TARGET TISSUES AND ORGANS.. Bridges, C. C., & Zalups, R. K. (2010).. (Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part B, Critical Reviews, 13(5), 385.)
8. TRANSPORT OF INORGANIC MERCURY AND METHYLMERCURY IN TARGET TISSUES AND ORGANS.. Bridges, C. C., & Zalups, R. K. (2010).. (Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part B, Critical Reviews, 13(5), 385.)
9. Modulation of methylmercury uptake by methionine: Prevention of mitochondrial dysfunction in rat liver slices by a mimicry mechanism.. Roos, D. H., Puntel, R. L., Farina, M., Aschner, M., Bohrer, D., T Rocha, J. B., & Barbosa, V. (2011).. (Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 252(1), 28.)
10. Sulfhydryl groups as targets of mercury toxicity.. Ajsuvakova, O. P., Tinkov, A. A., Aschner, M., Rocha, J. B., Michalke, B., Skalnaya, M. G., Skalny, A. V., Butnariu, M., Dadar, M., Sarac, I., Aaseth, J., & Bjørklund, G. (2020).. (Coordination Chemistry Reviews, 417, 213343.)
11. Diversity of Mercury-Tolerant Microorganisms.. Golysheva, A. A., Litvinenko, L. V., & Ivshina, I. B. (2025).. (Microorganisms, 13(6), 1350.)
12. Diversity of Mercury-Tolerant Microorganisms.. Golysheva, A. A., Litvinenko, L. V., & Ivshina, I. B. (2025).. (Microorganisms, 13(6), 1350.)
13. Microbial Diversity of Mer Operon Genes and Their Potential Roles in Mercury Bioremediation and Resistance.. Naguib MM, El-Gendy AO, Khairalla AS.. (The Open Biotechnology Journal. 2018;12:56–77.)
14. Role of the merT and merP gene products of transposon Tn501 in the induction and expression of resistance to mercuric ions.. Lund, P. A., & Brown, N. L. (1987).. (Gene, 52(2-3), 207-214.)
15. Expanded Diversity and Phylogeny of mer Genes Broadens Mercury Resistance Paradigms and Reveals an Origin for MerA Among Thermophilic Archaea.. Christakis, C. A., Barkay, T., & Boyd, E. S. (2021).. (Frontiers in Microbiology, 12, 682605.)
16. Microbial Diversity of Mer Operon Genes and Their Potential Roles in Mercury Bioremediation and Resistance.. Naguib MM, El-Gendy AO, Khairalla AS.. (The Open Biotechnology Journal. 2018;12:56–77.)
17. Sulfhydryl groups as targets of mercury toxicity.. Ajsuvakova, O. P., Tinkov, A. A., Aschner, M., Rocha, J. B., Michalke, B., Skalnaya, M. G., Skalny, A. V., Butnariu, M., Dadar, M., Sarac, I., Aaseth, J., & Bjørklund, G. (2020).. (Coordination Chemistry Reviews, 417, 213343.)
18. Mercury(II) Binding to Metallothionein in Mytilus edulis revealed by High Energy-Resolution XANES Spectroscopy. A. Manceau, P. Bustamante, A. Haouz, J. P. Bourdineaud, M. Gonzalez-Rey, C. Lemouchi, I. Gautier-Luneau, V. Geertsen, E. Barruet, M. Rovezzi, P. Glatzel, S. Pin,. (Chem. Eur. J. 2019, 25, 997.)
19. Toxicity of Glutathione-Binding Metals: A Review of Targets and Mechanisms.. Rubino, Federico M.. (Toxics, vol. 3, no. 1, 2015, p. 20,)
20. Sulfhydryl groups as targets of mercury toxicity.. Ajsuvakova, O. P., Tinkov, A. A., Aschner, M., Rocha, J. B., Michalke, B., Skalnaya, M. G., Skalny, A. V., Butnariu, M., Dadar, M., Sarac, I., Aaseth, J., & Bjørklund, G. (2020).. (Coordination Chemistry Reviews, 417, 213343.)
21. Sulfhydryl groups as targets of mercury toxicity.. Ajsuvakova, O. P., Tinkov, A. A., Aschner, M., Rocha, J. B., Michalke, B., Skalnaya, M. G., Skalny, A. V., Butnariu, M., Dadar, M., Sarac, I., Aaseth, J., & Bjørklund, G. (2020).. (Coordination Chemistry Reviews, 417, 213343.)
22. Sulfhydryl groups as targets of mercury toxicity.. Ajsuvakova, O. P., Tinkov, A. A., Aschner, M., Rocha, J. B., Michalke, B., Skalnaya, M. G., Skalny, A. V., Butnariu, M., Dadar, M., Sarac, I., Aaseth, J., & Bjørklund, G. (2020).. (Coordination Chemistry Reviews, 417, 213343.)
23. Toxicity of Glutathione-Binding Metals: A Review of Targets and Mechanisms.. Rubino, Federico M.. (Toxics, vol. 3, no. 1, 2015, p. 20,)
24. Sulfhydryl groups as targets of mercury toxicity.. Ajsuvakova, O. P., Tinkov, A. A., Aschner, M., Rocha, J. B., Michalke, B., Skalnaya, M. G., Skalny, A. V., Butnariu, M., Dadar, M., Sarac, I., Aaseth, J., & Bjørklund, G. (2020).. (Coordination Chemistry Reviews, 417, 213343.)
25. Rethinking mercury: the role of selenium in the pathophysiology of mercury toxicity.. Spiller, H. A. (2018).. (Clinical Toxicology, 56(5), 313–326.)
26. Expanded Diversity and Phylogeny of mer Genes Broadens Mercury Resistance Paradigms and Reveals an Origin for MerA Among Thermophilic Archaea.. Christakis, C. A., Barkay, T., & Boyd, E. S. (2021).. (Frontiers in Microbiology, 12, 682605.)
27. Mercury(II) binds to both of chymotrypsin's histidines, causing inhibition followed by irreversible denaturation/aggregation.. Stratton, A., Ericksen, M., Harris, T. V., Symmonds, N., & Silverstein, T. P. (2017).. (Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society, 26(2), 292.)
28. Methylmercury's chemistry: From the environment to the mammalian brain.. Nogara, P. A., Oliveira, C. S., Schmitz, G. L., Piquini, P. C., Farina, M., Aschner, M., & Rocha, J. B. (2019).. (Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - General Subjects, 1863(12), 129284.)
29. Mercury(II) binds to both of chymotrypsin's histidines, causing inhibition followed by irreversible denaturation/aggregation.. Stratton, A., Ericksen, M., Harris, T. V., Symmonds, N., & Silverstein, T. P. (2017).. (Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society, 26(2), 292.)
30. Methylmercury's chemistry: From the environment to the mammalian brain.. Nogara, P. A., Oliveira, C. S., Schmitz, G. L., Piquini, P. C., Farina, M., Aschner, M., & Rocha, J. B. (2019).. (Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - General Subjects, 1863(12), 129284.)
31. Silver(I), Mercury(II), Cadmium(II), and Zinc(II) Target Exposed Enzymic Iron-Sulfur Clusters when They Toxify Escherichia coli .. Xu FF, Imlay JA.2012.. (Appl Environ Microbiol78:.)
32. Potential role of Mercury pollutants in the success of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA300 in Latin America. C. A. Gustave, J.P. Rasigade, Patricia Martins-Simões, F. Couzon, Chloe Bourg, Anne Tristan, Frédéric Laurent, T. Wirth, F. Vandenesch. (bioRxiv 2020.07.01.150961)
33. Efflux pumps activation caused by mercury contamination prompts antibiotic resistance and pathogen's virulence under ambient and elevated CO2 concentration.. Qiu, L., Wang, Y., Du, W., Ai, F., Yin, Y., & Guo, H. (2023).. (Science of The Total Environment, 863, 160831.)
34. Impacts of Mercury Exposure Levels and Sources on the Demethylation of Methylmercury Through Human Gut Microbiota.. Yang, XF., Yang, SC., Wen, FL. et al.. (Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 109, 534–541 (2022).)
35. Impacts of Mercury Exposure Levels and Sources on the Demethylation of Methylmercury Through Human Gut Microbiota.. Yang, XF., Yang, SC., Wen, FL. et al.. (Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 109, 534–541 (2022).)
36. Environmentally relevant concentrations of mercury facilitate the horizontal transfer of plasmid-mediated antibiotic resistance genes.. Li, W., Zhang, W., Zhang, M., Lei, Z., Li, P., Ma, Y., & Gao, Y. (2022).. (Science of The Total Environment, 852, 158272.)
37. The Impact of Mercury Selection and Conjugative Genetic Elements on Community Structure and Resistance Gene Transfer.. Hall, J. P., Harrison, E., Pärnänen, K., Virta, M., & Brockhurst, M. A. (2020).. (Frontiers in Microbiology, 11, 561448.)
38. Impacts of Mercury Exposure Levels and Sources on the Demethylation of Methylmercury Through Human Gut Microbiota.. Yang, XF., Yang, SC., Wen, FL. et al.. (Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 109, 534–541 (2022).)
39. Environmentally relevant concentrations of mercury facilitate the horizontal transfer of plasmid-mediated antibiotic resistance genes.. Li, W., Zhang, W., Zhang, M., Lei, Z., Li, P., Ma, Y., & Gao, Y. (2022).. (Science of The Total Environment, 852, 158272.)
40. Dental Amalgam and Antibiotic- and/or Mercury-resistant Bacteria.. Roberts MC, Leroux BG, Sampson J, Luis HS, Bernardo M, Leitão J.. (Journal of Dental Research. 2008;87(5):475-479.)
41. Impact of occupational exposure on human microbiota.. Lai, P. S., & Christiani, D. C. (2019).. (Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 19(2), 86.)
42. Dental Amalgam and Antibiotic- and/or Mercury-resistant Bacteria.. Roberts MC, Leroux BG, Sampson J, Luis HS, Bernardo M, Leitão J.. (Journal of Dental Research. 2008;87(5):475-479.)
43. Mercury Resistance Determinants Related to Tn21, Tn1696, and Tn5053 in Enterobacteria from the Preantibiotic Era.. Essa AMM, Julian DJ, Kidd SP, Brown NL, Hobman JL2003.. (Antimicrob Agents Chemother47:.)
44. Environmentally relevant concentrations of mercury facilitate the horizontal transfer of plasmid-mediated antibiotic resistance genes.. Li, W., Zhang, W., Zhang, M., Lei, Z., Li, P., Ma, Y., & Gao, Y. (2022).. (Science of The Total Environment, 852, 158272.)
45. Environmentally relevant concentrations of mercury facilitate the horizontal transfer of plasmid-mediated antibiotic resistance genes.. Li, W., Zhang, W., Zhang, M., Lei, Z., Li, P., Ma, Y., & Gao, Y. (2022).. (Science of The Total Environment, 852, 158272.)
46. Environmentally relevant concentrations of mercury facilitate the horizontal transfer of plasmid-mediated antibiotic resistance genes.. Li, W., Zhang, W., Zhang, M., Lei, Z., Li, P., Ma, Y., & Gao, Y. (2022).. (Science of The Total Environment, 852, 158272.)
47. Evaluation of mercury exposure level, clinical diagnosis and treatment for mercury intoxication.. Ye, B. J., Kim, B. G., Jeon, M. J., Kim, S. Y., Kim, H. C., Jang, T. W., Chae, H. J., Choi, W. J., Ha, M. N., & Hong, Y. S. (2016).. (Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 28, 5.)
48. Evaluation of mercury exposure level, clinical diagnosis and treatment for mercury intoxication.. Ye, B. J., Kim, B. G., Jeon, M. J., Kim, S. Y., Kim, H. C., Jang, T. W., Chae, H. J., Choi, W. J., Ha, M. N., & Hong, Y. S. (2016).. (Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 28, 5.)
49. Evaluation of mercury exposure level, clinical diagnosis and treatment for mercury intoxication.. Ye, B. J., Kim, B. G., Jeon, M. J., Kim, S. Y., Kim, H. C., Jang, T. W., Chae, H. J., Choi, W. J., Ha, M. N., & Hong, Y. S. (2016).. (Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 28, 5.)
50. THE ROLE OF GUT MICROBIOTA IN FETAL METHYLMERCURY EXPOSURE: INSIGHTS FROM A PILOT STUDY.. Rothenberg, S. E., Keiser, S., Ajami, N. J., Wong, M. C., Gesell, J., Petrosino, J. F., & Johs, A. (2015).. (Toxicology Letters, 242, 60.)
51. Evaluation of mercury exposure level, clinical diagnosis and treatment for mercury intoxication.. Ye, B. J., Kim, B. G., Jeon, M. J., Kim, S. Y., Kim, H. C., Jang, T. W., Chae, H. J., Choi, W. J., Ha, M. N., & Hong, Y. S. (2016).. (Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 28, 5.)
52. Evaluation of mercury exposure level, clinical diagnosis and treatment for mercury intoxication.. Ye, B. J., Kim, B. G., Jeon, M. J., Kim, S. Y., Kim, H. C., Jang, T. W., Chae, H. J., Choi, W. J., Ha, M. N., & Hong, Y. S. (2016).. (Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 28, 5.)
53. Evaluation of mercury exposure level, clinical diagnosis and treatment for mercury intoxication.. Ye, B. J., Kim, B. G., Jeon, M. J., Kim, S. Y., Kim, H. C., Jang, T. W., Chae, H. J., Choi, W. J., Ha, M. N., & Hong, Y. S. (2016).. (Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 28, 5.)
54. THE ROLE OF GUT MICROBIOTA IN FETAL METHYLMERCURY EXPOSURE: INSIGHTS FROM A PILOT STUDY.. Rothenberg, S. E., Keiser, S., Ajami, N. J., Wong, M. C., Gesell, J., Petrosino, J. F., & Johs, A. (2015).. (Toxicology Letters, 242, 60.)
55. Assessing the Role of the Gut Microbiome in Methylmercury Demethylation and Elimination in Humans and Gnotobiotic Mice.. Coe, G. L., Krout, I. N., Munro-Ehrlich, M., Beamish, C. R., Vorojeikina, D., Colman, D. R., Boyd, E. J., Walk, S. T., & Rand, M. D. (2023).. (Archives of Toxicology, 97(9), 2399.)
56. Dental Amalgam and Antibiotic- and/or Mercury-resistant Bacteria.. Roberts MC, Leroux BG, Sampson J, Luis HS, Bernardo M, Leitão J.. (Journal of Dental Research. 2008;87(5):475-479.)
57. Assessing the Role of the Gut Microbiome in Methylmercury Demethylation and Elimination in Humans and Gnotobiotic Mice.. Coe, G. L., Krout, I. N., Munro-Ehrlich, M., Beamish, C. R., Vorojeikina, D., Colman, D. R., Boyd, E. J., Walk, S. T., & Rand, M. D. (2023).. (Archives of Toxicology, 97(9), 2399.)
58. Evaluation of mercury exposure level, clinical diagnosis and treatment for mercury intoxication.. Ye, B. J., Kim, B. G., Jeon, M. J., Kim, S. Y., Kim, H. C., Jang, T. W., Chae, H. J., Choi, W. J., Ha, M. N., & Hong, Y. S. (2016).. (Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 28, 5.)
59. An engineered gut bacterium protects against dietary methylmercury exposure in pregnant mice.. Yu KB, Chandra F, Coley-O'Rourke EJ, Paulson ET, Novoselov A, Zhang D, Finnigan D, Paramo J, Lopez-Romero A, Dong TS, Schartup AT, Hsiao EY.. (Cell Host Microbe. 2025 May 14;33(5):621-631.e7.)
60. An engineered gut bacterium protects against dietary methylmercury exposure in pregnant mice.. Yu KB, Chandra F, Coley-O'Rourke EJ, Paulson ET, Novoselov A, Zhang D, Finnigan D, Paramo J, Lopez-Romero A, Dong TS, Schartup AT, Hsiao EY.. (Cell Host Microbe. 2025 May 14;33(5):621-631.e7.)
61. An engineered gut bacterium protects against dietary methylmercury exposure in pregnant mice.. Yu KB, Chandra F, Coley-O'Rourke EJ, Paulson ET, Novoselov A, Zhang D, Finnigan D, Paramo J, Lopez-Romero A, Dong TS, Schartup AT, Hsiao EY.. (Cell Host Microbe. 2025 May 14;33(5):621-631.e7.)
62. Methylmercury's chemistry: From the environment to the mammalian brain.. Nogara, P. A., Oliveira, C. S., Schmitz, G. L., Piquini, P. C., Farina, M., Aschner, M., & Rocha, J. B. (2019).. (Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - General Subjects, 1863(12), 129284.)
63. A Review on Coordination Properties of Thiol-Containing Chelating Agents Towards Mercury, Cadmium, and Lead.. Bjørklund, G., Crisponi, G., Nurchi, V. M., Cappai, R., Djordjevic, A. B., & Aaseth, J. (2019).. (Molecules, 24(18), 3247.)
64. The Dietary Fiber Pectin: Health Benefits and Potential for the Treatment of Allergies by Modulation of Gut Microbiota.. Blanco-Pérez, F., Steigerwald, H., Schülke, S., Vieths, S., Toda, M., & Scheurer, S. (2021).. (Current Allergy and Asthma Reports, 21(10), 43.)
65. Microbial Diversity of Mer Operon Genes and Their Potential Roles in Mercury Bioremediation and Resistance.. Naguib MM, El-Gendy AO, Khairalla AS.. (The Open Biotechnology Journal. 2018;12:56–77.)
66. Heavy Metal–Gut Microbiota Interactions: Probiotics Modulation and Biosensors Detection.. Iatcu, O. C., Lobiuc, A., & Covasa, M. (2025).. (Biosensors, 15(3), 188.)