That’s fascinating - I studied the related rhodopsin compounds used in vision: Rhodopsin - Wikipedia in college. My focus was on psychophysics, which is the study of perceptual thresholds. Rhodopsin is so sensitive to light that the human visual system can detect a single photon under the right circumstances.
Seems like the evolutionary relationship between the two is unclear though.
Bumping this topic for the newbies.
My two cents on this… and I guess a little sales pitch for you to request a sample to try yourself?
J. Brockwell and P.J. Bottomley (1995) reported in Recent advances in inoculant technology and prospects for the future, published in Soil Biology and Biochemistry that many of the commercial microbial inoculants have not lived up to their claims; 90% of all inoculants have no practical value [emphasis added] whatsoever. We are literally buying watered down egg shells and manure. (not in all cases of course there are legitimate microbials out there, I am, or was a huge fan and promoter of Fungi Perfecti, it was kind of my circles little secret)
Even for the competitors’ products which do work, none are reporting the combination of such significant yield gains (compared to “grower standard,” not compared to a control of nothing) while being able to reduce conventional fertilizer by such dramatic amounts as our microbial formulations.
Something to be weary of… We have done over 80 University based studies with our microbial formulation, which most would assume means “legit” results right? I used to. I figured if a university studied something and found that it increased yield by 16% then that must be good, reliable accurate information.
However that assumption is incorrect. Most, almost all University backed research regarding Yield increase or anything else, is done against a control of zero. We have hundreds of field related studies in other crops which are done against a control of “the leading market brand.” We have tests ongoing right now along with some scientific cannabis specific studies up coming in September and October which should help to “back” our claims. Really it just comes down to educating yourself and making a decision on a formulation which will serve you. It seems to me that this platform, this thread and this community provides a place for you to get familiar and community approved solutions to your questions. URB is too new here to fit into any of what I just said… but we are putting our money where our mouth is and offering you a good amount of product to make your own determinations.
One day a newbie will ask this question again…and I know that the solution provided by the community will be URB. Today is not that day 
So I am simply giving you a suggestion and an opportunity to try a solution out for free.
I see two threads here.
One have we seen science that can provide plant protection from pathogens? Yes, work on yeast harvested from strawberries was reintroduced into hot house strawberry production. This reduced botrius infection in the environment. The experiment was done under control.
As for micro flora of soiless mixes I would reference you all to A E Bunts “Modern Potting Composts” 1976 susix University press.
Composted wood bark, showed definit improvement of transforming nitrates to nitrites. But, the correct water soluble fertilizer for your soiless mix gives almost as good results. The benefits of composted wood bark as a portion of the soiless mix showed more in stitsticly significant reductions in root rot pathogenic infections.
I believe the work was done using W R Graces Metro-Mix® 510, vs Primers Promix, vs Soil. Metro-Mix® 510 Is owned by someone else now.
