Return to the scientific review

Source and license notes supplied with these plates. Plate inclusion does not add a study to the review or change its evidence rating.

Sourced imagery — resident-brain-microbiome academic infographics

Compiled 2026-10-10. Everything below is real, openly licensed scientific imagery/data. No fabricated content. Page review: reviews/resident-brain-microbiome.html.

Electron micrograph (kept)

File What it shows Source License Required attribution line
ecoli-sem-niaid.jpg Scanning electron micrograph of rod-shaped E. coli bacteria; 2100×1766 NIAID (US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), via Wikimedia Commons (File:E. coli Bacteria (7316101966).jpg) Public domain (US federal government work) "Image: NIAID (public domain), via Wikimedia Commons"

Honesty note (also captioned on the graphic): this is cultured E. coli under SEM — what living bacteria look like. A microbial DNA signal in brain tissue is NOT this. Deliberately paired with a labeled schematic ("A DNA signal is not a living microbe") so the image cannot be read as evidence of brain microbes.

Photomicrograph (kept)

File What it shows Source License Required attribution line
hippocampus-nissl.jpg Section of mouse hippocampus, Nissl stain; 1600×1200 — healthy brain tissue, the setting of the resident-microbe claim Wikimedia Commons user "Ns_takes_photos" (own work), File:Hippocampal Neurons, stained.jpg CC BY 4.0 "Ns_takes_photos, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons"

Labeled schematics (kept)

Rejected candidates (not kept)

Candidate Why rejected
Ly et al. 2018, Cell Reports (PMC6082376), Figs 1/2/6 CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 — not permitted (CC0/CC-BY only). Files deleted
marmoset-mt-cortex.jpg (Lui & Rosa, Neuroscience Research 2015) Journal is subscription-access (Elsevier); open license unverifiable. File deleted
brain-mri-7t.png (7T basal-ganglia / DBS figure) Off-topic; source license unverified. File deleted
Brain-microbiome DNA-sequencing figures from primary papers Low-biomass 16S studies' figures are the contested evidence itself; reprinting them would imply endorsement. Schematic of the artifact argument used instead