Doggy Dust May Lower Asthma Risk

Mice that ate dust from homes with dogs were protected against a respiratory infection that can lead to asthma in humans. Christopher Intagliata 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!

Dogs aren't just man's best friend. Previous studies have shown that kids with dogs are less likely to develop asthma. Now a new study may show how—if results from mice apply to us. The work was presented at a meeting of the American Society for Microbiology. [Kei Fujimura et al., "Microbes in house dust from dog-owning homes protect against a common viral infection associated with increased risk of asthma development"]

The study tests what’s called the hygiene hypothesis. The idea is that extreme cleanliness may actually promote disease later on.

Researchers collected dust from homes that had a dog. They fed that house dust to mice. They then infected the mice with a common childhood infection called respiratory syncytial virus—or RSV. Mice who ate the dog dust were protected against RSV infection symptoms, like inflamed, mucus-coated airways, suggesting exposure helped them stave off the virus.


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.


Those mice also had more diverse communities of gut bacteria than control mice did. The researchers say our pet's microbes may colonize our gut too, and help the immune system learn to respond to infections.

That's important because when kids develop severe RSV their risk of asthma goes up. So next time Buster sheds all over the couch, think of it as a bonus dose of probiotics.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a 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