Microbiome FX – D

A reader forwarded me a 12 page sample of this report, “Microbiome Functional Analysis Report”. An issue immediately shouted out… two pages where the supplements recommended are their own products — this is a conflict of interests. To paraphrase a long standing legal maxim: “The report must not only be accurate, it must appear to be accurate and unbias”.

Page by Page Breakdown

  • Page 1: Alpha and Beta Diversity, Antibiotic Resistone. IMHO, none are usable for treating a microbiome dysfunction
  • Pages 2- 5: “Pathobiome” – listing possible pathogens and 4 parasites, everyone should be treated by one of their probiotics
  • Page 6: Ratios of different bacteria (F/B, P/A, P/B). IMHO, none are usable for treating a microbiome dysfunction
  • Page 7-8: Ammonia Producing/Ammonia Clearing, Estrobiome, Sulfate Reducing, Methane Producers. Useful to determine if you could be abnormal.
  • Page 8-9: drill in on very well research bacteria: Akkermansia muciniphila, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii,Ruminococcus bromii, Ruminococcus flavefaciens, Roseburia intestinalis, Eubacterium rectale,Bifidobacterium longum,Lactobacillus species
    • Every one of these recommend their line of probiotics
    • Also I was amused, with their ranges having ZERO (0) butyrate producers would appear to be perfectly healthy!
  • Page 10: a pending page on metabolic, some 15 (versus ubiome dozens!)
  • Page 11: Phylum levels
  • Page 12: Family levels
  • Page 13: Unique Species

Bottom line: No Genus information, no Strain information, the rest of the taxonomy hierarchy is missing.


See this post for the criteria being used.

Accessibility: DNo Downloads
Significance: DRanges given but only on a few
Reference:  DReference to US population with no breakdown
Actions: DGeneric with definite conflicts of interest
Evidence: DNone could be located
Benevolence: D
Support:  – No issues reported
Promptness: –See data below
Metadata: BProvides simple 3 state ratings, no actual values
Overtime: DCharts provided for metadata
Taxa Score: 8% – DOn a sample, only 123 reported
Taxa Scope 8%Only a few reported on

Bottom Line

Has the appearance of being offered as a marketing gimmick for their line of probiotics. Information offered is only of value to newbies.