Gut puzzle. Decoding the stool test results.
- Thread starter Porke
- Start date
Does your Ubiome test also show greater diversity because of the Euryarchaeotas? And how much percentage does it show?
Do you see correlations between your Ubiome-tests? I have 4 Ubiome-tests results during the last year, and ordered a new one. The last test I detected methane degrading bacteria (Flavobacter, Thiotrichales, Xanthomonadeles), maybe a sign, that more methane is produced. Also it showed slightly higher Verrucomicrobia, which are higher after antibiotics, what is or was not the case, but upcoming heavy metals and viruses could be the reason for this and for SIBO flare ups.
Simultaneously a few interesting bacteria for immunity are higher: coriobacter (as bifido healthy actinos), Akkermansia.
In my Ubiome-test-comparision I described the task of each microbes. It is very interested to realize, what kind of toxine the singular microbes chelate, or what kind of acid the microbe realeases, or what kind of function in the gut the microbes has, what kind of neurotransmitter it releases. So microbial changes are easier to understand, and maybe with time it is feedback what´s going on.
Last edited:
Hi, I am wondering what other issues you have alongside the gut ones. Do you have sensitivities to perfumes. chemicals, smoke etc as well as food? Do you have EDS or suspect you might? (unusually flexible etc)
I had little alarms bells going for MCAS, which can seriously affect digestion and cause food intolerances. Do you get reflux/indigestion at all?
Its just that your experience sounds somewhat similar to mine - gut issues, but stool tests not really that bad - nothing VERY obvious. Intolerance of probiotics, weight loss or gain, constipation or the opposite, all these issues can be caused by MCAS.
I had little alarms bells going for MCAS, which can seriously affect digestion and cause food intolerances. Do you get reflux/indigestion at all?
Its just that your experience sounds somewhat similar to mine - gut issues, but stool tests not really that bad - nothing VERY obvious. Intolerance of probiotics, weight loss or gain, constipation or the opposite, all these issues can be caused by MCAS.
- Messages
- 13
Hi Justy.
I only have some pretty intense hayfever. It has been lifelong, but has worsened along with my gut and general health
No real issues with chemicals or perfumes. I have also tried 3 months of low histamine diet, coupled with the whole "histadelic" treatment with sam-e, b6, methionine without much improvement in my allergic rhinitis / hay-fever. I don't think I am a match for MCAS, but from what I understand gut issues do worsen allergies quite significantly as it is so closely tied with the immune system.
Very low - 0.0034%. Diversity seems to vary a bit from analysis to analysis, ranging from 60-90%, back and forth. I presume this variability is something to do with the logarithm used to calculate it. This time it was around 60% so adding the Euryarchaeota didn't do anything.
I thought I was seeing some patterns but then ran into a series of problems. I had one test that had major changes in several genera. I wasn't quite sure what to make of it so thought I'd wait and see what happened in the next one. Well the next was a failed test and the next had a technical problem - very low counts.
So then I had to wait for the next test! It had a big change in several different genera. Really I am still trying to work out what this means. uBiome used to be very good about answering questions but I haven't had much success getting any help from them in coming to terms with these big changes.
I know what you mean. I made a big spreadsheet where I try to put as much of this sort of info as I can find, hoping to better understand changes and whether this correlates with any symptoms. It is a work in progress - If only my brain worked better and I had more energy I'd make more progress with this project!
Thank you, so diversity of 93 % has nothing to do with Eucaryotes.
Yes, Ubiome is very customer friendly. But I also hope, they will create patterns, that stay the same to be comparable. Non plus ultra would be to include fungi. Nevertheless, I am very happy for my results.
Yes, I understand. Researching the single microbes means reading many studies. It takes time, and is hard lecture - with or without brainfog. But to realize the possibilities we have in our gut is worth the work. I also try to describe the available probiotic strains. With time and holding on Ubiome tests we will better understand our microbes, and maybe we will be better in supporting the gut.
Last edited:
Yes this is my hope also.
Also a question I forgot to ask you previously. Were any constituents of the Eukaryota phylum identified in your analysis?
My Euryarchaeota consisted entirely of M. smithii.
This is the problem I have: I do not know, what kind of species in my Ubiometest belongs to a phylum or superkingdom etc. The whole project is a big learning process.
This is a comparision of my Ubiometests from 5/15 - 2/16:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pqnxgjbim09hyyf/Ubiome Test.xlsx?dl=0
The phylogenetic tree on the website should sort that out for bacteria at least, though you seem to have all the appropriate species sorted into the right phylums in your spreadsheet.
My phylogenetic tree didn't include Euryarchaeota at all but it was easy enough to google and find that the most common gut member of this phylum is Methanobrevibacter. When I looked under the counts that I had sorted by phylum or genus or species, I saw that M. smithii accounted for the entire Euryarchaeota count, so it seems to be the lone representative of the phylum.
Eukaryota would be a bit harder since it is such a broad category but maybe you could look for any new families or genera appearing in your analysis for the first time and googling to find what they are. That should quickly tell you if they are just more bacteria or something different that could fall under Eukaryota.
Definitely, the Eukaryota member is hard to find, on the quick I find nothing.
Interesting is the development of the Actinobacteria. I miss bifidobacteria, but Coriobacter is also associated with remission of a healthy colon, and both increase with taking fermented milk.
Corynebacter is very important for carb metabolism, as it degrades formaldehyde (methanol degrade to formaldehyde). Missing Corynebacter could mean producing more methanol and formaldehyde from not fully metabolized carbs.
Prescript Assist has some soil bacteria, and I hope to increase Actinos with time.
Sorry, @Porke, Ubiome-posts are better posted in the Ubiome-thread.
- Messages
- 13
Yup, probably best. This thread is getting a bit confusing now.
- Messages
- 13
Gradual onset. Worsening in distinct stages over the years. Gut issues started right at the beginning of onset, but have significantly increased, alongside my CFS. It begs the question - which came first? And whether these two are merely correlated, or is the gut a causative factor in my CFS.
@alicec
So it seems like you have done a ton of research into these microbiome stool analysis.
So in your opinion based on your research is KDMs test the most accurate or is Ubiome?
And for yourself how have you been handling your bacterial overgrowths with ABX or natural....
So it seems like you have done a ton of research into these microbiome stool analysis.
So in your opinion based on your research is KDMs test the most accurate or is Ubiome?
And for yourself how have you been handling your bacterial overgrowths with ABX or natural....
All three (including American Gut) use similar technology. There may be some differences between labs because of different extraction techniques etc.
No one is better than another.
The RedLabs test is much more expensive and results are received via your doctor. This might be helpful if you see KDM since there will be some assistance with interpretation. I doubt that many other doctors would have any clue.
So are the tests accurate or are they fraught with many flaws the provides an inaccurate picture to the patient?
They are not fraught with many flaws and they do provide a reliable picture to the patient, but they are not perfect, nor should we expect them to be perfect.
They are research techniques being applied on a large scale (at least for the two crowd-funded companies) in an attempt to increase knowledge and understanding. They are not meant to be diagnostic tests, though the knowledge gained from them may be helpful in assessing and treating gut-related problems.
Techniques and data analysis are being refined all the time to improve the tests but there still can be problems - eg I have had a couple of failed tests because of sampling errors (in the lab), differences can arise from sampling differences by the patient (so it is important to collect the same way and as instructed), different extraction techniques between the companies can lead to some different outcomes.
Certainly they give a much more accurate and reliable picture than the culture-based tests that have been the norm for decades.
These culture based tests are used by like atabdard labs? Or are their labs out their that are still ysing them for example Redlabs?
Yes the standard CDSA which has been the only type of test offered until recently. This is what you get when a gut test is ordered - many labs do them.
I have no idea if RedLabs still does such a test - you would have to look on their website.