Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T09:15:40.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Nutrigenetics and personalised nutrition: how far have we progressed and are we likely to get there?

Conference on ‘Multidisciplinary approaches to nutritional problems’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Gerald Rimbach
Affiliation:
Institute of Human Nutrition and Food Science, Christian Albrechts University, Hermann-Rodewald-Strasse 6, 24098 Kiel, Germany
Anne M. Minihane*
Affiliation:
Hugh Sinclair Human Nutrition Group, School of Chemistry, Food Biosciences and Pharmacy, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AP, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Dr Anne Minihane, fax +44 118 9310080, email a.m.minihane@reading.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nutrigenetics and personalised nutrition are components of the concept that in the future genotyping will be used as a means of defining dietary recommendations to suit the individual. Over the last two decades there has been an explosion of research in this area, with often conflicting findings reported in the literature. Reviews of the literature in the area of apoE genotype and cardiovascular health, apoA5 genotype and postprandial lipaemia and perilipin and adiposity are used to demonstrate the complexities of genotype–phenotype associations and the aetiology of apparent between-study inconsistencies in the significance and size of effects. Furthermore, genetic research currently often takes a very reductionist approach, examining the interactions between individual genotypes and individual disease biomarkers and how they are modified by isolated dietary components or foods. Each individual possesses potentially hundreds of ‘at-risk’ gene variants and consumes a highly-complex diet. In order for nutrigenetics to become a useful public health tool, there is a great need to use mathematical and bioinformatic tools to develop strategies to examine the combined impact of multiple gene variants on a range of health outcomes and establish how these associations can be modified using combined dietary strategies.

Information

Type
Nutrition Society Silver Medal Lecture
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2009
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Overview of nutrigenetic interactions.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Scheme of the potential of genetics, nutrigenetics and pharmacogenetics in health maintenance and treatment of diseases. The potential advantages of genotype-based personalised nutrition are: start early; personalised therapy; improved motivation.

Figure 2

Table 1. The adjusted OR for cardiovascular events in the Framingham Offspring Study according to apoE genotype in males and females (adapted from Elosua et al.(48) and Lahoz et al.(49))

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Example of the heterogeneity in response in plasma TAG levels following standard fat-containing meals. The plot represents the postprandial TAG response to a standard fat-containing breakfast (49 g fat, time 0 min) and lunch (29 g fat, time 330 min) for five individuals chosen randomly from the database of >200 individuals. Blood samples were taken at hourly intervals up to 8 h post breakfast. (Data from AM Minihane, KG Jackson, JA Lovegrove and CM Williams, unpublished results.)

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Impact of apoA5 T–1131C genotype on the postprandial plasma TAG response. (a) All subjects: (▪–▪), TT (n 214); (○– –○), TC (n 42); (), CC (n 3); P=0·002. (b), Females: (▪–▪), TT (n 92); (○– –○), TC (n 16); P=0·280. (c) Males (▪–▪), TT (n 122); (○– –○), TC (n 26); P=0·007. Values are means with their standard errors represented by vertical bars. (Adapted from Olano-Martin et al.(28).)