Search

Most discussions of human microbiome research have focused on bacterial investigations and findings. Our target is to understand how human eukaryotic microbiome research is developing, its potential distinctiveness, and how problems can be addressed. We start with an overview of the entire eukaryotic microbiome literature (578 papers), show tendencies in the human-based microbiome literature, and then compare the eukaryotic field to more developed human bacterial microbiome research. We are particularly concerned with problems of interpretation that are already apparent in human bacterial microbiome research (e.g. disease causality, probiotic interventions, evolutionary claims). We show where each field converges and diverges, and what this might mean for progress in human eukaryotic microbiome research. Our analysis then makes constructive suggestions for the future of the field., (© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society of Protistologists.)

Dysbiosis is a key term in human microbiome research, especially when microbiome patterns are associated with disease states. Although some questions have been raised about how this term is applied, its use continues undiminished in the literature. We investigate the ways in which microbiome researchers discuss dysbiosis and then assess the impact of different concepts of dysbiosis on microbiome research. After an overview of the term's historical roots, we conduct quantitative and qualitative analyses of a large selection of contemporary dysbiosis statements. We categorize both short definitions and longer conceptual statements about dysbiosis. Further analysis allows us to identify the problematic implications of how dysbiosis is used, particularly with regard to causal hypotheses and normal-abnormal distinctions. We suggest that researchers should reflect carefully on the ways in which they discuss dysbiosis, in order for the field to continue to develop greater predictive scope and explanatory depth., (Copyright © 2017 Hooks and O’Malley.)