[HN Gopher] A primer on why microbiome research is hard
___________________________________________________________________
A primer on why microbiome research is hard
Author : abhishaike
Score : 60 points
Date : 2024-08-30 16:01 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.owlposting.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.owlposting.com)
| lencastre wrote:
| More like this please!!!
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I kinda roll my eyes when I hear anything about the microbiome
| because it so rarely turns into an actual therapy.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| What about yogurt, kombucha, kimchi, etc.? Those have been
| around and globally common "forever". They're low profile,
| though, in their ubiquity.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Aren't those "the ones that mother gives you that don't do
| anything at all?" like all the other scammy probiotics?
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I don't know. I'm seeing articles suggesting our diet
| _used_ to contain more fermented foods but inventions like
| refrigeration has altered our diet to no longer lean on
| fermented foods as much.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| And what proof is there that that stuff is good for your
| health?
| remixff2400 wrote:
| Isn't that the whole point of the article? Microbiome
| research is hard? In this case, we're just left with
| trying to extrapolate loosely based off of trends.
|
| There's nothing to suggest that these things are bad for
| your health (as far as I'm aware) and there's a
| hypothesis (not a theory) that these might've contributed
| to gut microbiomes in the past. But, rather than
| conclusive proof, it might just be something low-stakes
| that people can try until more hard research or data is
| found that has a more conclusive direction, even if it
| disproves previous hypotheses.
|
| Until then, we're left making best-guess efforts with no
| conclusive proof. But, suggesting that these have no
| benefit is also incorrect until we have conclusive data
| to suggest otherwise. Hence, the point of the article:
| figuring out stuff about the microbiome is hard.
| trhway wrote:
| >scammy probiotics
|
| It is pretty understandably where you're coming from. The
| industry has no standards/certifications and thus a free
| play for anybody. I for example haven't found anything
| effective for me. For my dog though the FortiFlora
| noticeably improves the output (fortunately we have no
| serious issues here, it just like any dog owner you watch
| your dog's output as an important health indicator and over
| years, my is 15 already, you get to become a big specialist
| on your dog's output and notice any worsenings or
| improvements).
| doodlebugging wrote:
| Thanks for this article. I think it places a lot of the gut
| microbiome studies and findings in context.
|
| As a note for the author in case they are reading - you should do
| a quick Find/Replace on the article keyed on the word "git".
| There is more than one instance in the text where it clearly
| should read "gut microbiome" (or similar) and instead reads "git
| microbiome".
| GuB-42 wrote:
| > There is more than one instance in the text where it clearly
| should read "gut microbiome" (or similar) and instead reads
| "git microbiome".
|
| > For example, the git microbe Bacteroides dorei has become
| increasingly recognized for its role in heart conditions and
| T1D.
|
| I find the word "git" perfectly appropriate here.
| doodlebugging wrote:
| Perhaps I am mistaken and "git" in this context is simply an
| acronymn for "gastro-intestinal tract". Maybe capitalization
| would make this more obvious to those of us not directly
| involved in that space or a definition of "git" somewhere in
| the paper that defines use of the term in that context. If
| that already happened then I missed it.
|
| Thanks for pointing this out.
| kfarr wrote:
| Either that or version control causes hypertension for some
| folks...
| doodlebugging wrote:
| Or worse, Type 1 diabetes!
| kfarr wrote:
| "Check with your doctor to see how many units of insulin
| you'll need to inject with each merged PR."
| bn-l wrote:
| Thanks for the link. Very important research and I'm thankful for
| the scientists taking it on.
| zug_zug wrote:
| Fascinating article.
|
| Slightly-off-topic:
|
| This article presents the hard science as exceedingly difficult.
| I kinda suspect part of that is scientists have this attitude of
| acting completely blind to the hundreds of millions of years of
| evolution that made us what we are.
|
| For example, if we suppose that microbiome is important to
| health, and suppose that all human behaviors (e.g. hand-shaking,
| kissing) I think it gets us pretty quickly toward some great
| avenues to test. I almost wonder if the imperfect sanitation
| conditions we evolved in might have conferred some ability to
| exchange fecal microbes.
|
| Now obviously this doesn't really solve the fact that sequencing
| a microbiome is incredibly hard. But even without sequencing a
| microbiome you could probably do a blind test of saliva-swapping
| vs water and see to what degree this affects self-reported
| measures. Or if that's too hard to get past IRB, have one towel
| that's been touched by 50 people and one towel that's completely
| clean, and see if touching that has any subjective effects.
|
| It feels like the kind of things you could test on 1,000 students
| in a weekend for free.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-01 23:00 UTC)