3 results
Association of dietary fibre intake and gut microbiota in adults
- Daniel Lin, Brandilyn A. Peters, Charles Friedlander, Hal J. Freiman, James J. Goedert, Rashmi Sinha, George Miller, Mitchell A. Bernstein, Richard B. Hayes, Jiyoung Ahn
-
- Journal:
- British Journal of Nutrition / Volume 120 / Issue 9 / 14 November 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 24 October 2018, pp. 1014-1022
- Print publication:
- 14 November 2018
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Increasing evidence indicates that gut microbiota may influence colorectal cancer risk. Diet, particularly fibre intake, may modify gut microbiota composition, which may affect cancer risk. We investigated the relationship between dietary fibre intake and gut microbiota in adults. Using 16S rRNA gene sequencing, we assessed gut microbiota in faecal samples from 151 adults in two independent study populations: National Cancer Institute (NCI), n 75, and New York University (NYU), n 76. We calculated energy-adjusted fibre intake based on FFQ. For each study population with adjustment for age, sex, race, BMI and smoking, we evaluated the relationship between fibre intake and gut microbiota community composition and taxon abundance. Total fibre intake was significantly associated with overall microbial community composition in NYU (P=0·008) but not in NCI (P=0·81). In a meta-analysis of both study populations, higher fibre intake tended to be associated with genera of class Clostridia, including higher abundance of SMB53 (fold change (FC)=1·04, P=0·04), Lachnospira (FC=1·03, P=0·05) and Faecalibacterium (FC=1·03, P=0·06), and lower abundance of Actinomyces (FC=0·95, P=0·002), Odoribacter (FC=0·95, P=0·03) and Oscillospira (FC=0·96, P=0·06). A species-level meta-analysis showed that higher fibre intake was marginally associated with greater abundance of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii (FC=1·03, P=0·07) and lower abundance of Eubacterium dolichum (FC=0·96, P=0·04) and Bacteroides uniformis (FC=0·97, P=0·05). Thus, dietary fibre intake may impact gut microbiota composition, particularly class Clostridia, and may favour putatively beneficial bacteria such as F. prausnitzii. These findings warrant further understanding of diet–microbiota relationships for future development of colorectal cancer prevention strategies.
Contributors
-
- By Jane E. Adcock, Yahya Aghakhani, A. Anand, Eva Andermann, Frederick Andermann, Alexis Arzimanoglou, Sandrine Aubert, Nadia Bahi-Buisson, Carman Barba, Agatino Battaglia, Geneviève Bernard, Nadir E. Bharucha, Laurence A. Bindoff, William Bingaman, Francesca Bisulli, Thomas P. Bleck, Stewart G. Boyd, Andreas Brunklaus, Harry Bulstrode, Jorge G. Burneo, Laura Canafoglia, Laura Cantonetti, Roberto H. Caraballo, Fernando Cendes, Kevin E. Chapman, Patrick Chauvel, Richard F. M. Chin, H. T. Chong, Fahmida A. Chowdhury, Catherine J. Chu-Shore, Rolando Cimaz, Andrew J. Cole, Bernard Dan, Geoffrey Dean, Alessio De Ciantis, Fernando De Paolis, Rolando F. Del Maestro, Irissa M. Devine, Carlo Di Bonaventura, Concezio Di Rocco, Henry B. Dinsdale, Maria Alice Donati, François Dubeau, Michael Duchowny, Olivier Dulac, Monika Eisermann, Brent Elliott, Bernt A. Engelsen, Kevin Farrell, Natalio Fejerman, Rosalie E. Ferner, Silvana Franceschetti, Robert Friedlander, Antonio Gambardella, Hector H. Garcia, Serena Gasperini, Lorenzo Genitori, Gioia Gioi, Flavio Giordano, Leif Gjerstad, Daniel G. Glaze, Howard P. Goodkin, Sidney M. Gospe, Andrea Grassi, William P. Gray, Renzo Guerrini, Marie-Christine Guiot, William Harkness, Andrew G. Herzog, Linda Huh, Margaret J. Jackson, Thomas S. Jacques, Anna C. Jansen, Sigmund Jenssen, Michael R. Johnson, Dorothy Jones-Davis, Reetta Kälviäinen, Peter W. Kaplan, John F. Kerrigan, Autumn Marie Klein, Matthias Koepp, Edwin H. Kolodny, Kandan Kulandaivel, Ruben I. Kuzniecky, Ahmed Lary, Yolanda Lau, Anna-Elina Lehesjoki, Maria K. Lehtinen, Holger Lerche, Michael P. T. Lunn, Snezana Maljevic, Mark R. Manford, Carla Marini, Bindu Menon, Giulia Milioli, Eli M. Mizrahi, Manish Modi, Márcia Elisabete Morita, Manuel Murie-Fernandez, Vivek Nambiar, Lina Nashef, Vincent Navarro, Aidan Neligan, Ruth E. Nemire, Charles R. J. C. Newton, John O'Donavan, Hirokazu Oguni, Teiichi Onuma, Andre Palmini, Eleni Panagiotakaki, Pasquale Parisi, Elena Parrini, Liborio Parrino, Ignacio Pascual-Castroviejo, M. Scott Perry, Perrine Plouin, Charles E. Polkey, Suresh S. Pujar, Karthik Rajasekaran, R. Eugene Ramsey, Rahul Rathakrishnan, Roberta H. Raven, Guy M. Rémillard, David Rosenblatt, M. Elizabeth Ross, Abdulrahman Sabbagh, P. Satishchandra, Swati Sathe, Ingrid E. Scheffer, Philip A. Schwartzkroin, Rod C. Scott, Frédéric Sedel, Michelle J. Shapiro, Elliott H. Sherr, Michael Shevell, Simon D. Shorvon, Adrian M. Siegel, Gagandeep Singh, S. Sinha, Barbara Spacca, Waney Squier, Carl E. Stafstrom, Bernhard J. Steinhoff, Andrea Taddio, Gianpiero Tamburrini, C. T. Tan, Raymond Y. L. Tan, Erik Taubøll, Robert W. Teasell, Mario Giovanni Terzano, Federica Teutonico, Suzanne A. Tharin, Elizabeth A. Thiele, Pierre Thomas, Paolo Tinuper, Dorothée Kasteleijn-Nolst Trenité, Sumeet Vadera, Pierangelo Veggiotti, Jean-Pierre Vignal, J. M. Walshe, Elizabeth J. Waterhouse, David Watkins, Ruth E. Williams, Yue-Hua Zhang, Benjamin Zifkin, Sameer M. Zuberi
- Edited by Simon D. Shorvon, Frederick Andermann, Renzo Guerrini
-
- Book:
- The Causes of Epilepsy
- Published online:
- 05 March 2012
- Print publication:
- 14 April 2011, pp ix-xvi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
4 - Lepidopteran phytogeny and applications to comparative studies of development
- Edited by Marian R. Goldsmith, University of Rhode Island, Adam S. Wilkins, Company of Biologists Ltd
-
- Book:
- Molecular Model Systems in the Lepidoptera
- Published online:
- 23 November 2009
- Print publication:
- 28 April 1995, pp 107-138
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Comparative development
Comparative and experimental methodologies offer two complementary approaches to deducing both ontogenetic and phylogenetic mechanisms. Both kinds of studies analyze the effects of perturbations in the generation of these mechanisms, but in comparative studies the perturbation was introduced by the evolutionary process itself. At the methodological level, however, these approaches have quite separate traditions and tools. In large part, this is because the evolutionary experiment was completed long ago and many modifications have subsequently occurred. Furthermore, the unmodified “control” organism is typically missing – that is, has become extinct or subsequently modified independently of the “experimental” organism – and can only be inferred from analysis of multiple contemporary organisms. Thus, whereas the experimentalist may, for example, be satisfied to compare a single genetic mutant with its parental type, the comparative biologist frequently must deal with multiple species that differ in many loci, most of which have nothing to do with the phenotypic change of interest. Although this approach may seem indirect to an experimentalist, there really is no alternative when studying evolutionary processes.
Before the evolution of developmental processes can be inferred, it is necessary to place the species under study within its phylogenetic context, in order to establish the actual evolutionary sequence of change in ontogeny. This is analogous to the requirement that ontogenetic stages be temporally ordered before developmental mechanisms can be deduced. Of course, there are potential difficulties, if, for example, the developmental processes have evolved faster than speciation events have occurred or if species extinction has eliminated transitional forms. But, without phylogenetics, comparative biology becomes reduced to developmental taxonomy. For example, neotenic species display juvenilized phenotypes relative to their immediate ancestors.