Summary
Dog gut microbiome testing has moved from research tool to consumer product in a remarkably short time. Where sequencing a sample once required a university laboratory and months of processing, owners can now post a stool sample and receive a detailed report within weeks. The science driving this shift is genuine and significant – your dog’s gut microbiome influences digestion, immune function, inflammatory balance, skin health, behaviour, joint health, and longevity. Understanding its composition is, in principle, a powerful window into whole-body health.
In practice, the picture is more nuanced. The reports now available to dog owners vary considerably in what they measure, how they interpret findings, and, most importantly – how clearly they translate data into meaningful action. Many owners who invest in testing come away with a score, a handful of health indicators, and a list of supplement recommendations with little understanding of what the numbers actually mean or why specific dietary changes have been suggested.
This guide cuts through that gap. As a canine nutritionist with a Diploma in Canine Nutrigenomics – the science of how genetics and microbiome composition interact with diet – I want to give you the framework to read your dog’s results with genuine understanding, know what current testing can and cannot tell you, and make nutritional decisions that are grounded in the evidence behind the data.
Key Takeaways
- All consumer dog microbiome tests currently use 16S rRNA sequencing – they identify which bacteria are present, not what those bacteria are producing.
- Diversity and richness are related but distinct – a dog can score well on diversity and poorly on richness simultaneously.
- Health indicator scores (digestive function, immunity, neurological) are inferences drawn from bacterial composition, not direct measurements of those systems.
- The Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio provides a macro-level dysbiosis signal, but interpretation requires understanding what is driving the imbalance.
- Test results are a snapshot, not a stable picture – diet, stress, antibiotics and season all shift microbiome composition within days.
- The most valuable use of a microbiome test is as a baseline and tracking tool, retesting after 3-6 months of targeted dietary intervention.
- Dietary fibre diversity – not just fibre quantity – is the single most evidence-supported lever for improving canine microbiome composition.
In This Guide:
- What Is a Dog Gut Microbiome Test?
- How Dog Microbiome Tests Work – the Science Behind the Sample
- How to Read Your Dog’s Microbiome Report
- What Current Tests Cannot Tell You
- How to Act on Your Dog’s Results – the Nutrition Bridge
- How Often Should You Test?
- How to Choose a Dog Microbiome Test
- Frequently Asked Questions
- References
- Editorial Information
What Is a Dog Gut Microbiome Test?
A dog gut microbiome test is a stool-based sequencing test that analyses the community of microorganisms living in your dog’s gastrointestinal tract. Using a small faecal sample collected at home, the test identifies and quantifies the bacteria present in the gut, comparing the community profile against a reference database to generate scores and health indicators.
The gut microbiome is not simply a collection of bacteria. It is a dynamic, highly interdependent ecosystem encompassing bacteria, fungi (the mycobiome), viruses (the virome), archaea and protozoa, all interacting with each other and with the host.¹ In practical terms, current consumer tests focus almost exclusively on the bacterial component – and specifically on the relative abundance of bacterial taxa rather than their functional activity. Understanding this distinction is the foundation for interpreting your results correctly.
The is compositionally distinct from the human microbiome, with different dominant phyla, different metabolic priorities, and different responses to dietary change.² This means that results cannot and should not be interpreted through a human health lens – a consideration that is directly relevant to how much weight you place on any given health indicator score.
How Dog Microbiome Tests Work – the Science Behind the Sample
Understanding the methodology behind a test is essential to understanding its limitations. There are three sequencing approaches currently in use, and they are not equivalent in what they reveal.
16S rRNA Sequencing – the Current Consumer Standard
Every bacterium on earth contains a gene encoding the 16S ribosomal RNA subunit. This gene contains conserved regions (shared across all bacteria) flanking nine hypervariable regions (V1-V9) that differ between species. Consumer microbiome tests target one or two of these variable regions – typically V3-V4 – then match the resulting sequences against a reference database to identify which bacterial taxa are present and in what proportions.³
This approach is cost-effective, well-validated, and capable of producing meaningful community-level data. It can reliably tell you which bacterial genera and, in many cases, which species are present, how diverse the community is, how that diversity compares to a reference population, and which major phyla are dominant or depleted.
Its limitations are equally important to understand. 16S rRNA sequencing cannot detect fungi, viruses or parasites. It frequently cannot distinguish between closely related species within the same genus. And – critically – it provides no information about functional capacity: it cannot tell you what the bacteria present are actually producing, whether SCFA-synthesising pathways are active, or whether tryptophan is being converted to serotonin precursors via the gut-brain axis.⁴ All consumer dog microbiome tests currently available in the UK use this methodology.
Shotgun Metagenomic Sequencing – the More Advanced Method
Shotgun metagenomic sequencing takes a fundamentally different approach. Rather than targeting a single gene, it fragments and sequences all the DNA in the sample – bacterial, viral, fungal, parasitic, and even host DNA. The full genetic landscape is then assembled and annotated.⁵
The advantages are substantial. Shotgun sequencing can identify organisms to strain level rather than genus or species, detect the virome and mycobiome invisible to 16S, quantify the functional gene content of the microbiome (including metabolic pathways for butyrate production, bile acid metabolism and short-chain fatty acid synthesis), and detect antibiotic resistance genes. This means it can answer the question that 16S cannot: not just who is living in the gut, but what they are capable of doing.⁵
The limitation for dogs specifically is database maturity. The power of metagenomic annotation depends entirely on the quality of the reference database used for comparison. Human metagenomic databases are large and well-validated. Canine-specific databases are growing but remain considerably less comprehensive – a gap that ongoing research, including the 2026 Waltham Petcare Science Institute canine gut microbiome catalogue, is actively working to close.⁶ Shotgun sequencing also costs significantly more than 16S approaches and is not currently available as a consumer product for dogs in the UK.
Targeted qPCR – the Clinical Approach
A third methodology, quantitative PCR (qPCR), is used primarily in veterinary diagnostic settings rather than consumer products. Rather than sequencing the whole community, qPCR uses specific primers to quantify particular known organisms. It is faster and less expensive than sequencing but limited to the species on the panel. The Dysbiosis Index used in some veterinary laboratories is qPCR-based, designed to flag clinically significant imbalances in a small set of diagnostically relevant bacteria. This approach is not the same as a community-level microbiome profile.
| Feature | 16S rRNA | Shotgun Metagenomics |
|---|---|---|
| Consumer availability (dogs) | Yes – widely available | Not yet available |
| Typical UK cost | £50-£130 | £250-£500+ |
| Taxonomic resolution | Genus/species level | Species/strain level |
| Detects fungi and viruses | No | Yes |
| Functional pathway data | No | Yes |
| SCFA production capacity | No – inferred only | Yes – directly measured |
| Canine reference database | Growing | Limited – maturing |
| Turnaround time | 2-4 weeks | 4-8 weeks |
| Actionability for owners | Moderate | Higher, but DB-limited |
How to Read Your Dog’s Microbiome Report
Microbiome test reports typically present four to six core metrics, each measuring a different dimension of gut community health. Knowing what each metric actually represents – and what it does not – is the difference between an informed response and an anxious one.
Diversity Score
Most consumer reports calculate diversity using the Shannon Index, a standard ecological measure that accounts for both the number of species present and the evenness of their distribution. A high Shannon Index score means the gut community contains many species and no single species dominates – a pattern consistently associated with better health outcomes, greater resilience to disruption, and stronger metabolic capacity.⁷
A score in the region of 2.5 or above is generally considered high diversity in canine populations, though reference ranges vary between testing providers and are directly dependent on the size and quality of the reference population used for comparison. The larger the reference population, the more meaningful the benchmark.
Richness vs Diversity – a Critical Distinction
Richness refers to the raw number of different species detected. Diversity (Shannon Index) accounts for both richness and evenness. These two metrics can move in very different directions, and the difference matters.
A dog might have a high Shannon diversity score (species are evenly distributed) while having poor richness (relatively few distinct species present overall). The inverse is also possible. In practice, richness below roughly 300-400 species is considered sub-optimal in many canine reference datasets, though this figure shifts as datasets grow.⁸ If your dog’s report flags a healthy diversity score alongside a poor richness score, this is a meaningful signal: the bacteria present are well-balanced, but the community would benefit from expansion – achievable through dietary fibre variety rather than simply increasing fibre quantity.
Phyla Balance and the Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes Ratio
The two dominant bacterial phyla in the canine gut are Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes. Their ratio – the F/B ratio – provides a broad signal of microbial balance. A healthy canine F/B ratio is generally considered to fall between 0.2 and 0.5, with values significantly above or below this range associated with dysbiosis.⁹
A high F/B ratio (Firmicutes-dominant) has been associated in canine studies with conditions including obesity, inflammatory bowel disease, and infections. A very low ratio (Bacteroidetes-dominant) may indicate inflammation or IBD. However, the F/B ratio is a macro-level indicator, not a diagnostic tool. It tells you the direction of an imbalance; it does not tell you which specific species are driving it or what the functional consequences are.
Gut Wall Integrity Score
Some reports include a gut wall integrity or resilience score, reflecting the abundance of bacteria associated with tight junction maintenance – the structural proteins that control what passes through the gut epithelium. Key contributors include Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Roseburia and Actinobacteria. These bacteria produce metabolites – particularly short-chain fatty acids including butyrate – that fuel enterocytes (the gut lining cells) and support tight junction renewal.¹⁰
Low scores in this category have been linked in canine research to increased intestinal permeability, systemic inflammation, and a range of downstream conditions including skin sensitivity, food reactivity and immune dysregulation.¹¹ A target of approximately 35% abundance for this bacterial group is used in some reporting frameworks, with many dogs falling below this threshold.
Health Indicators – What They Are and Are Not
The health indicator tables presented in consumer reports – covering areas such as digestive function, immunity, neurological support, cardiovascular health and coat condition – represent inferences drawn from bacterial composition data, not direct measurements of those systems. This is an important distinction.
When a report shows a “Moderate” score for neurological function, it means that the bacterial species associated in research with gut-brain axis signalling – particularly those involved in tryptophan metabolism, GABA production, and short-chain fatty acid synthesis – are present at moderate levels relative to the reference population. It does not mean your dog has a neurological condition. Similarly, a “Below Average” score for protein digestion reflects the abundance of protein-metabolising bacteria, not a direct measurement of digestive enzyme activity.
Understanding this distinction prevents misinterpretation – and it is also key to understanding what dietary action can realistically achieve. You cannot directly change digestive enzyme output through microbiome-targeted nutrition, but you can shift the populations of bacteria that support the broader environment in which digestion occurs.
Pathogen Detection
Most consumer reports include a panel checking for the presence of known enteric pathogens including Campylobacter jejuni, Clostridium difficile, Clostridium perfringens, Salmonella enterica, and Helicobacter pylori. Detection of low levels of C. perfringens and Salmonella is common in asymptomatic dogs and does not necessarily indicate active infection – context, quantity and clinical signs all matter here. If any pathogen is detected at flagged levels, discussion with your vet is the appropriate step.
What Current Tests Cannot Tell You
Intellectual honesty about the limitations of current testing is not a reason to dismiss the technology – it is the foundation for using it well. Here are the five most important things a consumer-level dog microbiome test cannot currently tell you.
It cannot tell you what your dog’s microbiome is producing.
The gut-brain, gut-immune, gut-skin and gut-joint axes operate through molecular mechanisms – butyrate, propionate, acetate, lipopolysaccharide, neurotransmitter precursors, short-chain fatty acids. A 16S rRNA test tells you which bacteria are present, not whether their metabolic pathways are active or what they are generating. Two dogs with identical species profiles can have very different functional microbiomes. Shotgun metagenomics can address this, but is not yet consumer-available for dogs in the UK.
This is where postbiotics become directly relevant. Postbiotics are the bioactive compounds produced when gut bacteria metabolise dietary substrates – short-chain fatty acids (butyrate, propionate, acetate), bacteriocins, exopolysaccharides, cell wall fragments, and neurotransmitter precursors among them. They are the molecular currency through which the microbiome communicates with virtually every system in the body. The 2021 International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus definition formalised postbiotics as “preparations of inanimate microorganisms and/or their components that confer a health benefit on the host” – a definition that captures both fermentation-derived metabolites and heat-treated bacterial fractions.¹⁹
What a microbiome test cannot tell you is whether postbiotic production is occurring at adequate levels. A healthy population of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii does not guarantee sufficient butyrate output if fermentable substrate is limited. A strong Lactobacillus presence does not confirm active bacteriocin production. This gap between composition and function is precisely what makes postbiotic supplementation a meaningful third pillar alongside prebiotics and probiotics – it delivers the end-products of a healthy microbiome directly, bypassing the production requirement entirely.
It cannot tell you about fungi, viruses or parasites.
The mycobiome and virome are invisible to 16S sequencing. Fungal overgrowth – including Candida species – and bacteriophage activity are both meaningful contributors to gut health that do not appear in standard reports.
It is a single snapshot, not a stable picture.
Microbiome composition can shift substantially within days in response to diet change, antibiotic exposure, stress, season, and even exercise.¹² A sample taken during a period of illness, immediately following a diet change, or after a stressful event may not represent your dog’s baseline microbiome. For the most informative baseline, sample during a stable period of consistent feeding and good health.
Reference population sizes are still limited.
The healthy reference ranges used in consumer reports are derived from the testing provider’s own dataset. Populations of a few hundred to a few thousand dogs are meaningful starting points, but they are not yet large enough to account reliably for breed variation, age variation, or regional dietary differences. A result that appears “below average” may fall comfortably within the normal range for a dog of a particular breed or age group if that cohort were analysed separately.
It cannot assign causality.
Microbiome research demonstrates correlations between bacterial composition and health outcomes, but establishing causality – whether a particular bacterial pattern is causing a health issue or reflecting it – is methodologically complex. A score of “Moderate” for gut inflammation describes an association, not a confirmed cause.
How to Act on Your Dog’s Results – the Nutrition Bridge
Here is where the real value of microbiome testing lies. A test result without a nutrition strategy is data without direction. The following framework maps the most common findings to the dietary levers with the strongest evidence base in canine research.
Addressing Low Diversity and Richness
The single most evidence-supported intervention for improving microbiome diversity in dogs is increasing dietary fibre diversity, not simply fibre quantity.¹³ Different bacterial species ferment different fibre substrates. Bifidobacterium species preferentially ferment fructooligosaccharides (FOS) and inulin. Roseburia and butyrate-producing species respond strongly to beta-glucans and resistant starch. Lactobacillus species utilise a broad range of fermentable fibres. Feeding a single fibre source – even a high-quality one – selectively enriches one population while leaving others underserved.
Practical levers include rotating fibre sources across the diet (chicory root, potato fibre, beet pulp, linseed), incorporating plant-based diversity where diet allows, and considering a prebiotic supplement with multiple fermentable substrate types rather than a single-source FOS product.
Supporting Gut Wall Integrity
Low gut wall integrity scores – reflecting depleted Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium and Roseburia populations – respond most reliably to a combination of targeted probiotic supplementation and prebiotic substrate provision. This is the essence of synbiotic nutrition: providing both the organisms and the dietary fuel they require.¹⁴
Butyrate production is particularly important here. Butyrate is the primary energy source for colonocytes and the key driver of tight junction renewal. The bacteria responsible for butyrate synthesis (principally Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Roseburia and Butyrivibrio species) are dependent on fermentable fibre substrates, particularly resistant starch and pectin. If these species are low in your dog’s report, the nutritional response is to increase the substrates they depend on rather than supplementing butyrate directly.
There is, however, a strong case for postbiotic supplementation as a parallel strategy rather than an alternative one – particularly where gut wall integrity is significantly compromised. When intestinal permeability is elevated and the microbial environment is disrupted, the bacterial populations needed to generate butyrate endogenously may themselves be too depleted to respond quickly to substrate provision alone. Direct postbiotic delivery – in the form of fermentation-derived butyrate, heat-treated Lactobacillus cell fractions, or fermented whole-food substrates – can support tight junction renewal and colonocyte energy supply while the prebiotic and probiotic strategy builds underlying population recovery.²⁰
This is the practical logic of the Biotics Triad: prebiotics feed the bacteria, probiotics seed the populations, and postbiotics deliver the functional metabolites regardless of whether the microbial community is yet capable of producing them at therapeutic levels.
Supporting the Gut-Brain Axis
A below-average neurological support score reflects reduced abundance of bacteria involved in serotonin precursor production and vagal nerve signalling. The primary nutritional strategy here is supporting tryptophan availability and the bacteria that convert it to 5-hydroxytryptophan (5-HTP) precursors, alongside ensuring adequate fermentable fibre to support SCFA-mediated vagal signalling.¹⁵
Polyphenol-rich foods – including turmeric, green tea, blueberries and certain botanicals – have demonstrated capacity to positively modulate gut-brain axis bacteria in studies, likely through prebiotic-like effects on Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus populations.
Supporting the Gut-Immune Axis
Immune support scores that fall below average typically reflect reduced diversity in the bacterial populations responsible for regulatory T-cell education and anti-inflammatory metabolite production. The gut microbiome shapes immune tone primarily through three mechanisms: production of short-chain fatty acids (particularly butyrate and propionate), modulation of mucosal IgA levels, and direct interaction with GALT (gut-associated lymphoid tissue).¹⁶
Dietary strategies with the strongest evidence base for immune-microbiome support include high-diversity prebiotic fibre provision, postbiotic-containing fermented substrates, and a whole-food-sourced diet with low levels of ultra-processed ingredients – the last of which has been associated in multiple studies with reduced microbial diversity and elevated gut permeability markers.
How Often Should You Test?
A baseline test taken during a stable period of health and consistent diet provides the reference point against which all subsequent tests are compared. Without a baseline, a single test is interesting but difficult to act on with precision.
The most informative testing cadence, based on current evidence, is a baseline followed by a retest at 3-6 months after implementing targeted dietary or supplementation changes.¹⁷ This allows sufficient time for dietary interventions to produce measurable shifts in microbial composition – most studies show meaningful community changes within 4-8 weeks of consistent dietary change, though structural remodelling of the community takes longer.
Annual testing thereafter is reasonable as a health monitoring tool, with additional tests warranted following significant events: a course of antibiotics, a period of illness, a major diet change, or the development of new health concerns. Testing too frequently – more often than every 2-3 months – provides limited additional insight given normal variation in microbial composition between samples.
How to Choose a Dog Microbiome Test
As the consumer market for dog microbiome testing grows, the range of providers and price points will expand considerably. The following criteria provide an objective framework for evaluating any test.
- Sequencing method transparency.
Does the provider clearly state whether they use 16S rRNA or metagenomic sequencing, and which variable region is targeted? Transparency here is a proxy for scientific rigour overall.
- Reference population size and composition.
How many dogs make up the reference dataset? Is it canine-specific, and does it account for breed and age variation? Larger, better-characterised populations produce more reliable benchmarks.
- Actionability of reporting.
Does the report connect findings to specific, mechanistically grounded dietary or supplementation recommendations? Generic advice (add fibre, add protein) that is unconnected to the specific findings in the report is a sign of limited analytical depth.
- Credentials behind the interpretation.
Who has written and validated the recommendations? Look for qualified canine nutritionists, veterinary nutritionists, or microbiome scientists with canine-specific expertise.
- Data use and privacy policy.
Your dog’s microbiome data is valuable to the provider for database building. Understand how it is used, shared, and protected before submitting a sample.
- Longitudinal tracking capability.
Can you retest with the same provider and compare results over time on a standardised scale? This is essential for the test to function as a health monitoring tool rather than a one-off curiosity.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. Consumer microbiome tests are wellness tools, not diagnostic devices. Health indicator scores describe how well the bacterial composition is supporting various health functions; they do not diagnose diseases or conditions. If your dog shows clinical symptoms, a veterinary examination and appropriate diagnostic tests are the correct route – not a microbiome test.
Low-level detection of bacteria such as Clostridium perfringens and Salmonella enterica is common in healthy, asymptomatic dogs. Most reports indicate the quantity detected and flag levels that warrant veterinary discussion. If your dog is well and eating normally, a low-level detection finding alone is not a cause for alarm. A flagged high-level detection alongside clinical symptoms – vomiting, diarrhoea, lethargy – warrants veterinary attention.
Raw diet feeding has been associated with differences in canine gut microbiome composition compared to processed kibble, including higher levels of certain bacterial groups.¹⁸ However, the relationship is not straightforwardly positive. Raw diets have also been associated with higher Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratios and increased carriage of food-safety relevant bacteria in some studies. Microbiome composition reflects diet quality, diversity and ingredient range rather than processing method alone. A high-quality diet with diverse plant-based ingredients and low levels of ultra-processed additives supports a richer microbiome regardless of processing format.
Targeted supplementation can support specific bacterial populations but is unlikely to significantly shift overall diversity in isolation. Diversity is primarily driven by diet – specifically by the range of different fermentable substrates available to gut bacteria. A more useful framing is to think in terms of three complementary supplementation strategies rather than one.
Prebiotics feed the bacteria you want to enrich, selectively providing the fermentable substrates that target populations depend on. Probiotics seed specific bacterial species, most effectively when the prebiotic substrate they require is present simultaneously. Postbiotics deliver the functional end-products of a healthy microbiome – short-chain fatty acids, bioactive peptides, immunomodulatory cell fractions – directly to the gut environment, supporting function while diversity and richness are being rebuilt through dietary means.²¹
None of these replaces the diversity-promoting effect of a structurally varied, fibre-rich diet. But used together as a Biotics Triad, they address three distinct points in the same pathway: substrate availability, bacterial population, and metabolic output.
High diversity is generally associated with better health outcomes, but context matters. Some studies have noted that certain disease states are associated with unusual microbial compositions that may score well on diversity metrics while still being dysfunctional. The direction and composition of diversity matters alongside the raw score – this is why phyla balance, richness and gut wall integrity scores all need to be considered together rather than relying on a single headline number.
Antibiotics cause significant, rapid disruption to gut microbial communities. Testing immediately after a course of antibiotics will produce a result that is atypical of your dog’s baseline microbiome. Allow a minimum of 4-6 weeks post-antibiotic before testing, and ideally support microbiome recovery through targeted pre-, pro- and postbiotic supplementation during this period before establishing a new baseline.
References
- Suchodolski JS. Intestinal microbiota of dogs and cats: a bigger world than we thought. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2011;41(2):261-272. doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2010.12.006. PMID: 21486635.
- Handl S, Dowd SE, Garcia-Mazcorro JF, Steiner JM, Suchodolski JS. Massive parallel 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing reveals highly diverse fecal bacterial and fungal communities in healthy dogs and cats. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2011;76(2):301-310. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2011.01058.x. PMID: 21261668.
- Jovel J, Patterson J, Wang W, et al. Characterization of the gut microbiome using 16S or shotgun metagenomics. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:459. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00459. PMID: 27148170. PMC: 4837688.
- Suchodolski JS. Diagnosis and interpretation of intestinal dysbiosis in dogs and cats. Vet J. 2016;215:30-37. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2016.04.011. PMID: 27160005.
- Quince C, Walker AW, Simpson JT, Loman NJ, Segata N. Shotgun metagenomics, from sampling to analysis. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35(9):833-844. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3935. PMID: 28898207.
- Castillo-Fernandez J, Gilroy R, Jones RB, et al. Waltham catalogue for the canine gut microbiome: a complete taxonomic and functional catalogue of the canine gut microbiome through novel metagenomic based genome discovery. Microbiome. 2026;14(1):25. Published 2026 Jan 17. doi:10.1186/s40168-025-02265-w
- Mondo E, Marliani G, Accorsi PA, Cocchi M, Di Leone A. Role of gut microbiota in dog and cat’s health and diseases. Open Vet J. 2019;9(3):253-258. doi: 10.4314/ovj.v9i3.10. PMID: 31998619.
- Guard BC, Barr JW, Reddivari L, Klemashevich C, Jayaraman A, Steiner JM, Vanamala J, Suchodolski JS. Characterization of microbial dysbiosis and metabolomic changes in dogs with acute diarrhea. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0127259. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127259. PMID: 26000959. PMC: 4441376.
- Minamoto Y, Otoni CC, Steelman SM, Buyukleblebici O, Steiner JM, Jergens AE, Suchodolski JS. Alteration of the fecal microbiota and serum metabolite profiles in dogs with idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease. Gut Microbes. 2015;6(1):33-47. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2014.997612. PMID: 25531678. PMC: 4615558.
- Pilla R, Suchodolski JS. The role of the canine gut microbiome and metabolome in health and gastrointestinal disease. Front Vet Sci. 2020;6:498. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00498. PMID: 31993446. PMC: 6971114.
- Cassmann E, White R, Atherly T, Wang C, Kanwar N, Mochel JP, Pilla R, Suchodolski JS, Jergens AE. Alterations of the ileal and colonic mucosal microbiota in canine chronic enteropathies. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0147321. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147321. PMID: 26840462. PMC: 4740462.
- Garcia-Mazcorro JF, Dowd SE, Poulsen J, Steiner JM, Suchodolski JS. Abundance and short-term temporal variability of fecal microbiota in healthy dogs. MicrobiologyOpen. 2012;1(3):340-347. doi: 10.1002/mbo3.36. PMID: 23233283. PMC: 3496944.
- Middelbos IS, Vester Boler BM, Qu A, White BA, Swanson KS, Fahey GC Jr. Phylogenetic characterization of fecal microbial communities of dogs fed diets with or without supplemental dietary fiber using 454 pyrosequencing. PLoS One. 2010;5(3):e9768. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009768. PMID: 20339554. PMC: 2842293.
- Schmitz S, Suchodolski JS. Understanding the canine intestinal microbiota and its modification by pro-, pre- and synbiotics – what is the evidence? Vet Med Sci. 2016;2(2):71-94. doi: 10.1002/vms3.17. PMID: 29067182. PMC: 5645859.
- O’Mahony SM, Clarke G, Borre YE, Dinan TG, Cryan JF. Serotonin, tryptophan metabolism and the brain-gut-microbiome axis. Behav Brain Res. 2015;277:32-48. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2014.07.027. PMID: 25078296.
- Hooper LV, Littman DR, Macpherson AJ. Interactions between the microbiota and the immune system. Science. 2012;336(6086):1268-1273. doi: 10.1126/science.1223490. PMID: 22674334.
- Kim J, An JU, Kim W, Lee S, Cho S. Differences in the gut microbiota of dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) fed a natural diet or a commercial feed revealed by the Illumina MiSeq platform. Gut Pathog. 2017;9:68. doi: 10.1186/s13099-017-0218-5. PMID: 29201150. PMC: 5697093.
- Sandri M, Dal Monego S, Conte G, Sgorlon S, Stefanon B. Raw meat based diet influences faecal microbiome and end products of fermentation in healthy dogs. BMC Vet Res. 2017;13(1):65. doi: 10.1186/s12917-017-0981-z. PMID: 28253873. PMC: 5333397.
- Salminen S, Collado MC, Endo A, Hill C, Lebeer S, Quigley EMM, Sanders ME, Shamir R, Swann JR, Szajewska H, Vinderola G. The International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of postbiotics. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;18(9):649-667. doi: 10.1038/s41575-021-00440-6. PMID: 33948025. PMC: 8387231.
- Bonel-Ayuso DP, Pineda-Pampliega J, Martinez-Alesón García P, Fernandez-Muela M, de la Fuente J, Garcia Fernandez PM, Redondo BI. Effects of postbiotic administration on canine health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Microorganisms. 2025;13(7):1572. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms13071572. PMID: 40732081.
- Duysburgh C, Nicolas C, Van den Broeck M, Lloret F, Monginoux P, Rème C, Marzorati M. A specific blend of prebiotics and postbiotics improved the gut microbiome of dogs with soft stools in the in vitro Simulator of the Canine Intestinal Microbial Ecosystem. J Anim Sci. 2025;103:skaf056. doi: 10.1093/jas/skaf056. PMC: 11971633.
Editorial Information
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Published | March 2026 |
| Last Updated | March 2026 – see revision history |
| Reviewed by | Veterinary Advisory Board |
| Next Review | September 2026 |
| Author | Glendon Lloyd, Dip. Canine Nutrition (Dist.), Dip. Dog Nutrigenomics (Dist.), Founder, Bonza |
| Disclaimer | This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute veterinary advice. Always consult a qualified veterinarian before making changes to your dog’s diet or supplement regimen. |
