Plug & Play eyes GLP-1 companion nutrition as microbiome’s next frontier

The microbiome nutrition space is growing rapidly, with start-ups emerging as scientific understanding and AI technologies continually expand. Plug & Play believes that this next wave of microbiome solutions can be successful for industry players who pair AI and big data. 

The innovation platform tells Nutrition Insight about whether “microbiome companions” could enhance GLP-1 benefits and how microbiome data could help predict individual responses to treatment. 

Plug & Play’s latest report found that AI and data-led investments in the microbiome market are growing, with start-ups building personalized health solutions.

It pointed out that the first generation of microbiome single-strain therapies “failed” because the microbiome does not work by targeting a single disease, as the single-strain solutions attempted. Instead, it suggested that success hinges on AI paired with clinically validated long-term data, since these enable holistic approaches and a comprehensive understanding of the microbiome as a whole system.

Examining industry strengths, the report found that inflammaging and metabolic health are the most scientifically mature areas, while the gut-skin axis is the most dynamic but least clinically proven.

Microbiome opportunities in the GLP-1 space

Plug & Play’s “Microbiome longevity: Top start-ups rewiring how we age” report ties microbiome momentum to GLP-1 conversations. According to the global innovation platform’s ventures analyst, Arthur Jamon, there is a potential biology-based opportunity for a “microbiome companion” alongside GLP-1 drugs.

Jamon says caution is required when products are sold as a “natural GLP-1.”“Gut bacteria fermenting fiber produce short-chain fatty acids that stimulate the body’s own GLP-1. A randomized trial published in Science in 2018 confirmed this in humans: a high-fiber diet improved blood sugar control in people with type 2 diabetes, partly through increased GLP-1.”

“Caution is needed when products are sold as a ‘natural GLP-1,’” he warns. “Nudging your own hormone levels is not comparable to a pharmaceutical dose, and overpromising risks damaging trust in the whole category.”

Jamon sees additional opportunities alongside GLP-1 drugs regarding “tolerability” and “prediction.”

“Digestive side effects are among the most common side effects and are one of the reasons why people reduce or stop treatment. This is where gut microbiome and fiber-based approaches are worth testing. Some companies, like Myota, already design fiber blends specifically to limit digestive discomfort.”

“Also, responses to GLP-1 drugs vary widely, and microbiome and metabolic data could eventually help anticipate who benefits most and who may struggle with side effects,” he adds. “Much of this still needs to be confirmed in humans, through trials run in people taking GLP-1 drugs. The companies that generate that evidence first will be the ones worth watching.”

Advice for companies 

The Plug & Play report stated that first-generation single-strain therapies “failed.” Jamon adds that probiotic products and ingredients should be looked at separately.

As consumers become more familiar with microbiome science, generic ‘good bacteria’ messaging will convince fewer people, says Jamon.“The companies we referred to were developing drugs tested against specific diseases through a pharma pathway. Their difficulties came from a mix of factors, including low clinical success rates, costs, and business models. Some of the science actually held up: Seres got Vowst approved as the first US FDA-approved oral microbiome therapy before Nestlé Health Science took it over.”

“Probiotics on shelves work under different rules and make different promises. One lesson carries over, though: effects are specific to the strain, the dose, the population, and the outcome, and evidence from one strain doesn’t automatically transfer to another,” he explains.

For any product, Jamon points out that brands and ingredient suppliers need to ask which strain, for which benefit, is backed by which study — as this will matter more over time.

“As consumers become more familiar with microbiome science, generic ‘good bacteria’ messaging will convince fewer people. Brands that can clearly show what their product does and the evidence supporting it will stand out, while others will find it harder to justify their place on the shelf,” he advises.

“We also expect more products to pair specific strains with fiber or other ingredients that support the microbiome as a whole.” 

Eye on metabolic health and inflammaging benefits

According to the Plug & Play report, inflammaging and metabolic health are the most scientifically mature levers in the microbiome space.

Jamon explains that for nutrition brands, the metabolic health space is growing out of its early stages and is closer to yielding real, evidence-backed products because it is easier to measure than inflammaging.

“Blood sugar and insulin sensitivity are well-established, quantifiable markers that can change within weeks, so a trial can show fairly quickly whether a product works. That’s why the most commercially advanced microbiome companies are in this space.”

Jamon says companies building aging biomarker measurement tools are laying the groundwork to eventually gain regulatory approval for longevity products.“Inflammaging may matter more for how we age, but it’s harder to prove. Chronic inflammation builds over decades, and the markers used to track it can rise for many unrelated reasons. There’s no agreed-upon way yet to show that a nutritional product slows it, and most of the work here is still in the early research stage,” he explains.

However, Jamon notes that metabolic health and inflammaging are closely linked; the most credible products in the near future will likely impart a metabolic benefit, with lower inflammation as a supporting one.

Longevity market and regulatory challenges

In the market, very few start-ups make explicit healthspan claims yet, and this is because of a lack of proof and the resulting regulatory limits, explains Jamon.

“No one can run a trial long enough to show that a product adds healthy years to someone’s life. Other fields got around this with markers that stand in for the final outcome, as with cholesterol in heart disease. For aging, there’s no standard accepted marker yet.”

“Without that, regulators have nothing to assess. In the US, the FDA doesn’t recognize aging as a disease, and in Europe, any health claim must be supported by evidence of a specific benefit. ‘Supports healthspan’ doesn’t fit either system,” Jamon points out. 

Furthermore, he highlights credibility issues in the crowded and sometimes overhyped longevity space.

“Serious companies don’t want to be confused with the rest. So most of them prove something measurable, like better blood sugar control or a stronger gut barrier, and let the longevity angle follow.”

“That will change as aging biomarkers become more reliable and gain regulatory acceptance,” says Jamon. “The companies building those measurement tools today are laying the groundwork for it. Until then, we expect more start-ups to position themselves around longevity well before they make explicit claims about it.”