These are literature reviews, not trials we ran. They summarise what other researchers have published, including the parts where the evidence is thinner than we would like. Where a review says an effect is modest or contested, it says so, and so do we.

ReviewReferences
Cytokine pathways and inflammatory responsiveness (in preparation)TNFA, IL6, IL6R, IL1A, IL1B, CRP34
Antioxidant defence against free radicals (in preparation)GSTM1, GSTT1, GSTP1, SOD2, GPX133
Detoxification of combustion-derived pollutants (in preparation)CYP1A1, CYP1B125
Detoxification of environmental chemicals (in preparation)GSTM1, GSTT1, GSTP125
MTHFR and MTRR in homocysteine regulation (in preparation)MTHFR, MTRR15
VDR variation and the vitamin D dose responseVDR14
CYP1A2 genotype and the health effects of coffee (in preparation)CYP1A213
Salt intake, blood pressure and the AGT locus (in preparation)AGT, GNB312
APOA1 promoter variation and HDL response to omega-3 (in preparation)APOA19
MTHFR variation, folate activation and the case for methylfolateMTHFR10
GPX1 variation and selenium requirement (in preparation)GPX17
Catecholamine-driven lipolysis and caloric restriction (in preparation)ADRB26
NQO1 in the antioxidant activation of Coenzyme Q10 (in preparation)NQO14

Why we publish these

Most personalised supplement brands ask you to trust a claim. The honest alternative is to show the papers and let you check them yourself. Every reference here is a real citation you can look up: author, journal, year.

It also keeps us honest internally. Writing the review is how we decide whether a marker earns a place in the panel at all.

See what your own genes say

One saliva test reads 57 nutritional markers, then builds a formula around the result.

See pricing