Baby's Bacteria Related to Birth Method

A small study finds that C-section babies pick up different microbial starter communities than do babies delivered vaginally. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Each of us harbors a unique collection of bacteria, on our outsides and our insides. Now, scientists are finding that the bacteria you get at birth may depend on how you got here. Because babies born vaginally have a different set of microbes than those that arrive by Caesarean-section. The work appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Maria Dominguez-Bello et al., http://bit.ly/c1KYK9]

The uterus is a sterile environment. So, in the womb, babies don’t have any bacteria to call their own. It’s only once they enter the world that they begin to collect the microbes that will colonize their bodies and help shape their immunity. But where do these bugs come from?

Scientists sampled the bacterial flora from nine newborns and their mothers. And they found that babies who passed through the birth canal harbored bacteria that matched their moms’ vaginal microbiota. Whereas babies delivered by C-section had microbes typically found on the skin.

The scientists say the results could help explain why babies that arrive by C-section are more susceptible to certain infections. Vaginal microbes might be quicker than skin bugs at snagging all the best bodily real estate, a land grab that could keep harmful infections from getting a foot in the door.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe