What we check. The Certificate of Analysis and supplier documents: identity and standardisation, purity and contaminants (heavy metals, microbial limits, residual solvents and pesticides), and source documentation (supplier, origin, batch and date of manufacture).

About the acute assessment. Acute toxicity is read from the survival of the worms during the 48-hour BioSēq™ exposure itself, so no separate study is run. It informs dose selection; it is not a regulatory safety study, and no safety claim is made from it.

Naming. A worm gene that matches one human gene shows that gene; one that matches several shows the largest human gene family, with “+N” for further matches.

Selection. The 10 largest increases and 10 largest decreases among changed genes with a human counterpart and a baseline expression of at least 50 reads.

How mechanisms are chosen. Pathway groups that are statistically significant (adjusted p below 0.05) are ranked by the BioSēq™ mechanistic priority score, which weighs how central the group is to the overall response; groups with strong or moderate evidence come first. Engagement is the pipeline's evidence rating (strength and consistency across pathway libraries). Direction: more or less active when the regulators and at least 60% of the group's changed genes agree; otherwise reshaped, meaning parts of the group went up and parts went down. The table lists every mechanism with strong or moderate evidence; ● marks the six shown above. L5 and L6 draw on all of them.

Benchmark (prelim-2026.10): 22 studies from 14 independent ingredient groups on standard food, run on the current BioSēq™ engine. Related studies (same experiment or same molecule) count once, and the ingredient's own group is left out. The score is the share of the ingredient's changed human genes that fall in the mechanism, which does not depend on how large the overall response is. A common response is significant in at least 85% of the groups and is never shown as leading. Stands out: stronger than at least 80% of the other groups, and still so in at least 90% of 500 resamples of the panel.

Reading the map. Left: the key human genes or gene families from the changed worm genes (▲ up, ▼ down). Middle: the key mechanisms from 4.1. Right: the health domains each mechanism is linked to; L5 develops these.

Draft mapping. Mechanism-to-domain links combine the pipeline's curated health-domain map with a NemaLife mapping drafted for review.

How themes are chosen. One theme per health area with a strong signal. The text combines a plain description of the area with the mechanisms from L4 that point to it (for gut health, also the digestive-gene signature and digestive pathways). The full health-area profile follows in 5.2.

Conserved in humans. At least one gene behind the theme has a human counterpart supported by four or more of the six OrthoList 2 prediction programs.

How the signal level is set. Every mechanism with strong or moderate evidence (L4) is linked to health areas (draft mapping, for review). A mechanism counts 1 toward its main area and 0.5 toward a second one. Strong signal: 1.5 or more (for example the area's main mechanism plus one other); Signal: less; Not seen: none. Gut health also counts the digestive-gene signature (1): five or more changed genes whose human counterparts are specific to digestive tissues (Human Protein Atlas: stomach, duodenum, small intestine, colon and rectum), with at least 80% moving the same way. Switched on counts with the benefit, switched off against it. This study: 6 switched on, 10 switched off (no signature). It also counts digestive pathways (0.5): digestive-function pathways significant in the pathway analysis (for example protein digestion and absorption, pancreatic or gastric secretion), with five or more of their genes changed and at least 80% moving the same way. The two lines can share genes. This study: 10 pathways, 42 genes switched on, 22 switched off (no consistent direction). An area whose support moved mostly against the beneficial direction is shown as Not seen (marked opposite direction in this table) and gives no benefit theme. Areas are ordered by their total support, then by the size of their main mechanism (changed genes). Stronger than: the share of the other BioSēq™ panel ingredients with a lower combined mechanism score for the area.

How mechanistic claims are chosen. One mechanistic claim per benefit theme in 5.1. Each is anchored to a key mechanism from L4 that sits behind that theme and is not used by another claim, so every claim traces back to the same mechanism, engagement and direction shown in L4. Wording follows direction. “Activates” or “suppresses” is used only when the pathway model and at least 60% of the mechanism’s genes agree (more or less active in L4). All four mechanisms here were reshaped, with parts of the group up and parts down, so the claims use “engages” or “modulates”. Mechanistic claims describe biology, not health outcomes; functional product wording belongs in the private functional claim advisory. TGF-β/BMP signalling was more active but has only emerging engagement and no benefit theme in 5.1, so it carries no claim.

Mechanistic claim wording is a draft (claim library v0.1) for regulatory review before any public use.