Table 2.
Examples of results and interpretations provided in the different reports
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health index | Poor gut health — strongly altered microbiome | Improvable health | Average for gut health | |||||||||
| Bacterial diversity index | Good (based on Shannon index) |
Values Diversity — Shannon index: 6.08 Species richness: 277 Species evenness: 0.75 Average for the three parameters but interpreted as “Excellent” |
Value = 250 Average |
Value = 5.82 Average (based on Shannon index) |
Unfavourable | Good | ||||||
| Gut dysbiosis index | High dysbiosis | Small dysbiosis | ||||||||||
| Enterotypes | Ruminococcus | Bacteroides | Bacteroides? | Bacteroides | ||||||||
| Inflammation |
Anti-inflammatory (Lactobacillus ↑) Pro-inflammatory (Proteobacteria ↑) |
Excellent | Average | High = pro-inflammatory | Average | |||||||
| (Value in % of relative abundance) | Value | Interpretation | Value | Interpretation | Value | Interpretation | Value | Interpretation | Value | Interpretation | Value | Interpretation |
| Bacillota | 43.88 | 47.63 | 47.2 | 26.46 | 19 | No value: the results are qualitative and only mention the presence or absence of identified bacteria | ||||||
| Bacteroidota | 46.36 | 42.83 | 46.5 | 63.93 | 77 | |||||||
| Actinobacteriota | 2.27 | 1.77 | 2.3 | 3.72 | 2 | |||||||
| Pseudomonata | 2.39 | 0.93 | 2 | 3.05 | 1 | |||||||
| Verrucomicrobiota | 3.08 | 1.45 | 2 | 0.36 | 1 | |||||||
| Examples of bacteria generally presented in the reports (value in % of relative abundance) | ||||||||||||
| Akkermansia | 0.53 | Normal | 0.34 | High | ||||||||
| Akkermansia muciniphila | 2.44 | High | Normal | 2.04 | Optimal | High | Favourable | |||||
| Bacteroides | 29.16 | Average | 32.21 | High | 36.3 | High | ||||||
| Bifidobacterium | 1.19 | High | 0.53 | Normal | Optimal | 1.68 | High | |||||
| Faecalibacterium | 14.16 | High | 8.41 | Low | ||||||||
| Faecalibacterium prausnitzii | 6.26 | High | High | 5.7 and 0.22* | Optimal | Low | Favourable | |||||
Presentation of some results obtained in the different reports (non-exhaustive list of examples). Conflicting results are obtained for the different indices evaluated (health index/diversity index/gut dysbiosis index), for the determination of enterotypes, for the estimation of inflammation and for the relative abundance of specific taxa (at the phyla or at the genera level)
*The company 3 reported 2 different relative abundances regarding Faecalibacterium prausnitzii for an unknown reason