Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

9th Congress of the International Society of Nutrigenetics/Nutrigenomics

Free Access

Guide and Position of the International Society of Nutrigenetics/Nutrigenomics on Personalised Nutrition: Part 1 - Fields of Precision Nutrition

Ferguson L.R.a · De Caterina R.b · Görman U.c · Allayee H.d · Kohlmeier M.e · Prasad C.f · Choi M.S.g · Curi R.h · de Luis D.A.i · Gil A.j · Kang J.X.k · Martin R.L.l · Milagro F.I.m · Nicoletti C.F.n · Nonino C.B.n · Ordovas J.M.o · Parslow V.R.a · Portillo M.P.p · Santos J.L.q · Serhan C.N.r · Simopoulos A.P.s · Velázquez-Arellano A.t · Zulet M.A.m · Martinez J.A.m, u

Author affiliations

aDiscipline of Nutrition and Auckland Cancer Society Research Centre, FM & HS, and Nutrigenomics New Zealand, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; bInstitute of Cardiology ‘G. d'Annunzio' University and Center of Excellence on Aging, Chieti, Italy; cEthics Unit, Centre for Theology and Religious Studies, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; dInstitute for Genetic Medicine and Department of Preventive Medicine, USC Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif., eDepartment of Nutrition, School of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, N.C., and fDepartment of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Texas Woman's University, Denton, Tex., and Department of Medicine, LSU Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, La., USA; gDepartment of Food Science & Nutrition, Center for Food & Nutritional Genomics, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea; hDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; iCenter of Investigation of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Medicine School and Department of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Hospital Clínico Universitario, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, jDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology II, Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology, Center of Biomedical Research, University of Granada, Granada, and CIBERobn, Physiopathology of Obesity, Carlos III Institute, Madrid, Spain; kLaboratory for Lipid Medicine and Technology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass., and lNutrigenetics Unlimited Inc., Fullerton, Calif., USA; mDepartment of Nutrition, Food Science and Physiology, University of Navarra, and Center for Nutrition Research, University of Navarra, Pamplona, and CIBERobn, Physiopathology of Obesity, Carlos III Institute, Madrid, Spain; nDivision of Nutrition, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil; oNutrition and Genomics Laboratory, Jean Mayer-U.S., Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, Mass., USA, and IMDEA Alimentación, Madrid, Spain; pNutrition and Obesity Group, Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, University of Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz, and CIBERobn, Physiopathology of Obesity, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain; qDepartment of Nutrition, Diabetes and Metabolism, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile; rCenter for Experimental Therapeutics and Reperfusion Injury, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Harvard Institutes of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass., and sCenter for Genetics, Nutrition and Health, Washington, D.C., USA; tDepartment of Molecular Genetics and Biotechnology, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico, Mexico; uNavarra Institute for Health Research (IdiSNA), Pamplona, Spain, and International Union of Nutritional Sciences (IUNS), Vienna, Austria

Corresponding Author

Prof. J. Alfredo Martinez

Department of Nutrition, Food Science and Physiology

University of Navarra, Irunlarrea 1

ES-31008 Pamplona (Spain)

E-Mail jalfmtz@unav.es

Related Articles for ""

J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 2016;9:12-27

Abstract

Diversity in the genetic profile between individuals and specific ethnic groups affects nutrient requirements, metabolism and response to nutritional and dietary interventions. Indeed, individuals respond differently to lifestyle interventions (diet, physical activity, smoking, etc.). The sequencing of the human genome and subsequent increased knowledge regarding human genetic variation is contributing to the emergence of personalized nutrition. These advances in genetic science are raising numerous questions regarding the mode that precision nutrition can contribute solutions to emerging problems in public health, by reducing the risk and prevalence of nutrition-related diseases. Current views on personalized nutrition encompass omics technologies (nutrigenomics, transcriptomics, epigenomics, foodomics, metabolomics, metagenomics, etc.), functional food development and challenges related to legal and ethical aspects, application in clinical practice, and population scope, in terms of guidelines and epidemiological factors. In this context, precision nutrition can be considered as occurring at three levels: (1) conventional nutrition based on general guidelines for population groups by age, gender and social determinants; (2) individualized nutrition that adds phenotypic information about the person's current nutritional status (e.g. anthropometry, biochemical and metabolic analysis, physical activity, among others), and (3) genotype-directed nutrition based on rare or common gene variation. Research and appropriate translation into medical practice and dietary recommendations must be based on a solid foundation of knowledge derived from studies on nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics. A scientific society, such as the International Society of Nutrigenetics/Nutrigenomics (ISNN), internationally devoted to the study of nutrigenetics/nutrigenomics, can indeed serve the commendable roles of (1) promoting science and favoring scientific communication and (2) permanently working as a ‘clearing house' to prevent disqualifying logical jumps, correct or stop unwarranted claims, and prevent the creation of unwarranted expectations in patients and in the general public. In this statement, we are focusing on the scientific aspects of disciplines covering nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics issues. Genetic screening and the ethical, legal, social and economic aspects will be dealt with in subsequent statements of the Society.

© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel


Keywords

Precision nutrition · Omics · Genetic tests · Nutrigenetics · Nutrigenomics · Health and disease ·


Introduction

The purpose of the International Society of Nutrigenetics/Nutrigenomics (ISNN) is to increase through research the understanding of the role of genetic variation and dietary response and the role of nutrients in gene expression among both professionals and the general public [1].

The Society is educational in its mission to serve as a focus for communicating among interested scientists working in nutrition, genetics, cellular and molecular biology, physiology, pathology, biochemistry, clinical medicine, epidemiology, and public health, who are studying the role of genetic variation and dietary response and the role of nutrients in gene expression. It is believed that improved communication across these different branches of medical and biological sciences will stimulate new research and increase the knowledge of gene-nutrient interactions and genetic variation and dietary response. The ISNN will assist in interpreting the new facts into sound nutritional advice for the public as well. As needed, the Society will establish committees to handle scientific and educational aspects and develop statements to be approved by the Board.

A first such statement has been developed on the state of the art of the field of nutrigenetics/nutrigenomics, focusing on personalized nutrition and biotechnological advances. Subsequent statements will be on the ISNN position on genetic testing, ethical, social and legal aspects. Some of the statements may be developed in collaboration with other institutes and national societies.

Personalized Nutrition

Individuals respond differently to lifestyle interventions, especially those modulating diet, because of genetic variants that influence how dietary components are absorbed, metabolized and utilized [2,3]. Therefore, dietary advice that is specific to individuals with a particular genotype should be more effective at preventing chronic diseases than general recommendations about diet [4]. Some consumer genetic testing companies are beginning to provide information as to how diet should be modified, based on the genotype, to prevent disease or improve health, i.e. personalized nutrition (fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Endeavors and achievements already made, plus progress and challenges in current and future scenarios with regard to personalized nutrition.

http://www.karger.com/WebMaterial/ShowPic/506203

The sequencing of the human genome and consequent increased knowledge regarding human genetic variation is contributing to the emergence of personalized nutrition [2]. Recognition of diverse individual nutritional needs and responses to diet are changing standards of nutritional care, creating new possibilities for this field.

Dietary reference intake values such as recommended dietary allowance and safe upper limits established by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Medicine are based on recommendations for populations rather than for specific individuals or groups of individuals [5]. Some countries emphasize the food guide pyramid of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) [6], or the USDA dietary guidelines [7]. Promotion of dietary patterns believed to be beneficial, such as the Mediterranean diet, is another way to express healthy nutrition [8]. Most dietary recommendations are stratified according to gender and age, but these are not the only factors that should be considered when giving advice on nutrient intake. Diversity in the genetic profile between individuals and specific ethnic groups affects nutrient requirements, metabolism and response to nutritional and dietary interventions [9,10].

Environmental, cultural and economic factors also play a crucial role in individual food choices and accessibility [10]. Malnutrition in the form of undernutrition or obesity can also modify gene expression and genome stability, resulting in changes in phenotype, and hence it is difficult to choose one population as a reference [11]. New statistical approaches are urgently needed for estimating reference values in different population groups [12]. Features such as age, gender, physical activity, physiological state, social status and special conditions such as pregnancy and risk of disease [13] can inform dietary advice that more closely meets individual needs [14].

Improved health care can be achieved if nutritional recommendations are personalized according to individual genetic profile, phenotype, health status, food preferences and environmental characteristics [10]. Personalized nutrition is an important part of personalized medicine and may assist in establishing guidelines for specific subgroups based on phenotype and genotype.

The suffix ‘omics' means ‘global' and is used as a modifier for a wide range of endeavors such as the comprehensive analysis of genes (genomics), DNA modifications (epigenomics), messenger RNA (mRNA) or transcripts (transcriptomics), proteins (proteomics), metabolites (metabolomics), lipids (lipidomics), food (foodomics) and microbiota (microbiomics, metagenomics). All these techniques can be applied separately or in an integrated manner for a better understanding of health metabolism and disease progression [10].

As mentioned already, some ‘omics' technologies could be used to develop optimal, customized diets to promote health maintenance and disease prevention for each individual, thus expanding into effective public health strategies on diet therapy [15,16]. With this perspective, the omics tools most immediately relevant to personalized nutrition include nutrigenetics, nutrigenomics and nutriepigenetics. Nutrigenetics investigates the influence of the genotype (variants of the DNA sequence) on the response to nutritional change and on the risk of nutrition-related disease. Nutrigenomic studies investigate the effect of nutrition on gene expression and, consequently, on the proteome and the metabolome [17]. Nutriepigenetic studies explore the chromatin structure and DNA modifications that do not alter the underlying DNA sequence, but affect gene expression [18].

These advances in genetic science are raising numerous questions regarding how personalized nutrition can contribute solutions to emerging problems in public health, by reducing the risk and prevalence of nutrition-related disease. The availability of genetic information also raises questions from health-care professionals as to how to apply such knowledge, and from individuals regarding how to use such information. Furthermore, commercialization of genetic information raises ethical and moral issues. Hence, the interpretation and inclusion of genetic components into nutrition recommendations and products may generate ethical and financial difficulties while simultaneously promoting a revolution in nutrition.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified a large number of genetic variants associated with complex diseases and traits [19], but have failed to explain a large part of their heritability [20]. GWAS usually measure the impact of genes on disease using correlations rather than studying interactions between genes and environmental factors such as diet or exercise. These interactions cause genotypic effects to be more pronounced under particular environmental conditions. Therefore, failing to control for such variations means that GWAS data provide only a partial picture of genetic variation contributing to disease development, particularly with regard to heritability [21].

GWAS should be considered as only a first step in the understanding of the molecular basis of complex diseases. The advances in nutrigenetics, nutrigenomics and nutriepigenetics will help to identify the variability in interactions not controlled for in GWAS. This situation means that new bioinformatics and biostatistics tools will be necessary to make this new information useful for health-care professionals [22].

Current views on personalized nutrition encompass omics technologies, functional foods, existing products, future challenges - particularly those relating to legal and ethical aspects, application in clinical practice, and population scope, in terms of guidelines and epidemiological factors (fig. 1). In this statement, we are focusing on the scientific aspects of disciplines covering nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics issues. Genetic screening and the ethical, legal, social and economic aspects will be dealt with in subsequent statements of the Society.

Omics Technologies in Personalized Nutrition

Application of information regarding genes and molecular pathways related to the use and metabolism of nutrients is a key approach for personalized nutrition [23], the knowledge of which is facilitated by the emergence of ‘omics' technologies.

Nutrigenetics

A major contribution of the Human Genome Project was to lay the foundation that led to the discovery of millions of differences in the nucleotide sequence of genes. The variants occurring in at least 1% of any distinct population are called polymorphic variants or polymorphisms [23]. A particularly common type of polymorphism is defined by the replacement of one nucleotide base with another, and therefore called ‘single nucleotide polymorphism' (SNP). Some SNPs may affect the synthesis and function of proteins, and may therefore alter nutritional requirements and nutrient metabolism [24,25], as well as playing important roles in an individual's risk of developing disease [26].

A further way in which genetic variations occur is through structural DNA changes that include insertions/deletions, translocations and copy number variations (CNVs). CNVs explain about 1% of the genetic variation between two individuals [27]. Some of them appear to play an important role in human health [28,29] through association with the risk of disease development and progression [30].

The discovery of diseases associated with genetic variants has provided a better understanding of nutrient/diet effects on human health and disease [10], and has helped individuals to achieve customized nutritional treatments. One example of this is phenylketonuria (PKU), an inborn error of metabolism caused by mutations in the gene that encodes the hepatic enzyme phenylalanine hydroxylase [31]. Individuals with PKU need to avoid foods rich in the amino acid phenylalanine. Another example is lactase persistence, which evolved a few thousand years ago in response to the development of dairy farming. Carriers of variants associated with lactase persistence have their lactase gene permanently ‘turned on' after weaning and can digest lactose even as adults. Lactose (milk sugar) is a disaccharide, made from glucose and galactose. Therefore, the 70% of the global population, who do not have such genetic variants, are better off limiting consumption of milk and other dairy products rich in lactose [31].

Recent studies investigating genetic variants associated with obesity risk or with resistance to weight loss in human populations [32,33] have helped clarify molecular mechanisms involved in obesity [34]. One such example is the fat mass and obesity-associated (FTO) gene. The minority (16%) of individuals with two copies of the common FTO variant (rs9939609) weigh around 3 kg more than noncarriers and have a 1.67-fold increased risk of obesity [35]. Variants in numerous other obesity candidate genes, such as peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor, uncoupling proteins (UCP1 and UCP3), leptin receptor and melanocortin 4 receptor, can also affect weight gain or loss in genetically predisposed subjects [32,36].

Variants in genes necessary for lipid metabolism, such as those encoding cholesteryl ester transfer protein, lipoprotein lipase, low-density lipoprotein receptor and apolipoprotein E, may increase the risk of coronary artery disease [37,38,39,40]. Further variants are associated with the development of diabetes, cancer and other diseases. Dietary advice specifically tailored to some of these variants may reduce the elevated disease risk better than genetic counselling without knowledge of the genetic information [41].

Many other metabolic pathways and biological functions have similarly identifiable genetic vulnerabilities that are amenable to tailoring of dietary intakes. For example, the combination of low folate intake, a low-activity variant of the 5,10-methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase gene (MTHFR), increases susceptibility to disease, while either of them on their own will not [42,43]. Technologies such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms (arrays, bead chips and sequencing approaches) provide a rapid scan of known genetic variants to define genetic differences between individuals [44,45].

Assessing the role of single gene variants in complex traits influenced by many genes [e.g., diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD)] is difficult for many reasons, but not least due to gene-gene interactions. Therefore, simultaneous examination of multiple variants is necessary, given the fact that several of them may affect the function of a particular gene and that multiple genes may contribute to disease development and progression. This approach assists with defining biological response to food components and food patterns, thereby advancing strategies to identify, treat and prevent disease [45]. In particular, the analysis of groups of gene variants (haplotypes) that are related or physically close to each other on the same DNA strand can promote our understanding of biological events and conditions [46].

Telomere length (TL) has also been linked to the risk of several diseases, such as cancer and CVD [47]. Telomeres are tandem TTAGGG repeats of DNA that, together with associated protein factors, protect the ends of chromosomes and become shorter with each round of DNA replication [48]. TL is a biomarker of cumulative oxidative stress, biological age, and an independent predictor of survival and therapeutic treatment requirements. Thus, leukocyte TL has been proposed as a biomarker of biological age [47]. Studies have shown that dietary patterns can protect or damage telomeres. For example, high consumption of fruits and vegetables and a higher intake of omega-3 fatty acids or fiber were associated with longer telomeres [49,50], whereas higher intake of saturated fatty acids and higher consumption of processed meats were both associated with telomere shortening [51]. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that total dietary antioxidant capacity was associated with longer telomeres, while higher white bread consumption was associated with telomere shortening in a population of Spanish children and adolescents [52].

Nutrigenomics

Nutrients and food components can affect and regulate gene activity both directly and indirectly, including acting as ligands of transcription factors and playing a regulatory role in intermediate metabolites of signaling pathways, with positive or negative effects [53]. Hence, nutrigenomics seeks to show how dietary factors influence gene expression and subsequently impact protein and metabolite levels [54,55]. A common approach is the examination of individual mRNA levels relative to intake of certain food components. Nutrigenomic strategies thus include analysis of gene expression and biochemical profiles. Early examples of such research strategies include the finding that dietary cholesterol inhibits transcription of the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase (HMGCR) gene [56], and that long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduce gene transcription of platelet-derived growth factor and interleukin-1β [57,58].

Transcriptomics

The study of the transcriptome (the complete set of RNA transcripts) [23], provides a tool for observing such changes in gene expression in response to different factors including dietary changes [59]. Diet, physical activity, alcohol and smoking habits all modify gene expression and consequently affect the risk of pathological outcome [36,60]. Dietary components, such as macronutrients and micronutrients influence gene expression, thereby altering metabolism and the development of disease [23]. Transcriptome analysis can evaluate the expression of thousands of genes before and after dietary intervention, showing the difference between healthy and unhealthy individuals and helping to establish new biomarkers for disease diagnosis [23].

Transcriptomics requires the study of cells in which genes are expressed, because gene expression is often tissue specific. It is difficult to access the most relevant human tissues, meaning that samples are usually available only from the more accessible tissues such as subcutaneous adipose tissue, blood mononuclear cells and skeletal muscle [61]. Polymerase chain reaction has been used to measure gene expression in the interaction of the genome and diet [31]. Newer microarray technologies can identify most changes in gene expression and in metabolic pathways after nutritional intervention.

Epigenetics/Epigenomics

Epigenetic processes bring about reversible modifications in chromatin structure and DNA modification without altering the underlying sequence. Epigenetic changes include DNA methylation and histone modification [33,62,63]. Different classes of small noncoding RNAs (such as microRNAs) or long noncoding RNAs have been proposed as key regulators of gene expression, chromatin remodeling and epigenetic changes through multiple mechanism, showing a potential as biomarkers of human diseases [64,65]. Additionally, external effects (including diet) on the epigenome alter the expression of genes, providing a link between environment, nutrition and disease [66].

DNA methylation is the most widely studied form of epigenetic modification. One of numerous specific methyltransferases adds a methyl group to the cytosine in the carbon 5′ position of a CpG dinucleotide (cytosine followed by a guanine). The added methyl group often silences the gene by blocking the binding of transcription factors [61,67]. In recent years, development of new technologies such as NGS has allowed the detection of site-specific methylation patterns with great accuracy and led to the discovery of new types of epigenetic modifications [68,69,70].

Histone modifications, consisting of acetylation, methylation, phosphorylation and ubiquitination, affect transcription through compacting DNA. This process can activate or repress gene expression by controlling accessibility of genes to transcriptional regulators [71,72].

Epigenetics depends on the presence of enzymes and dietary nutrients, and can occur in a gene-specific or in a global manner [73]. S-adenosylmethionine (SAM) is the universal methyl donor for all methyltransferases that methylate DNA and histones. The availability of SAM can be diminished under some circumstances by insufficient availability of folic acid, vitamin B12, vitamin B6, vitamin B2, choline, betaine and methionine, both due to low intake and individual genetic vulnerabilities [74,75].

Some studies have shown a relationship between nutritional intake during pregnancy and changes in methylation patterns in rats [76,77]. Nutritional interventions in pregnancy and lactation such as energy restriction and excessive dietary fat can alter epigenetic modifications [78]. Other studies have shown that epigenetic modifications change the risk of inflammation, obesity and chronic diseases [79]. A study of obese men on a hypocaloric diet to lose weight found distinct differences in DNA methylation patterns between individuals with high weight loss compared to those with little weight loss [80]. Studies in diabetic individuals found associations between the secretion of insulin and the DNA methylation pattern in the promoter region of the PCG-1A gene of pancreatic β-cells [81].

New NGS and microarray technologies have enabled the study of DNA methylation at high resolution across the genome, helping to characterize epigenetic outcomes though epigenome-wide association studies [82].

Proteomics

Transcriptomics does not show the number of expressed proteins. Thus, one transcript can be translated into numerous proteins, just as many factors can stop or modify the translation process or cause posttranslational modifications [6]. Proteomics analyzes protein expressed over a given time, and is the most precise method for identifying the effect of nutrients and food components on the genome [6,23].

Each cell will have a corresponding proteome, depending on the cell's type and function [83]. Proteins are commonly analyzed in blood samples [84], but there is not a single platform capable of evaluating the full spectrum of proteins in blood or tissue samples [85].

Lipidomics

Lipids play an important role in nutrition and metabolism [86]. Lipidomics produces a global profile of lipids found in cells, tissues and fluids [87], studying the interactions between genes, diet, nutrients and human metabolism [86,88]. It is an emerging tool for identifying individual variability in response to nutritional interventions, and can be used in diet counseling and to optimize food processing [86]. Lipidomic studies are possible due to advances in mass spectrometry technologies [89]. Use of lipidomics in clinical practice is still in its infancy, because the knowledge of lipid metabolism pathways is incomplete and needed tools continue to evolve [90].

Metabolomics

Metabolomics studies metabolites in human systems [83], focusing on changes in the biochemical profile of biological fluids, blood, urine, saliva, cells and tissues [91]. Some authors have proposed a new term, ‘nutrimetabolomics', meaning the application of metabolomics in nutrition and health [91,92].

Metabolomic studies can evaluate groups of metabolites related to a specific metabolic pathway or compare modifications in patterns of metabolites in response to environmental stimuli [93] following targeted or untargeted approaches. Thus, metabolomics is considered the end point of human molecular analysis [94] and can assess the body's response to a diet. Many studies have used metabolic profiling to identify food biomarkers and to define dietary patterns. Other applications of metabolomics include monitoring of food consumption and assessment of food quality [95]. Hence, metabolomics can answer questions such as how a high-saturated fat diet can affect lipid profile, or how the intake of fiber affects glycemia. Recent dietary intervention studies using metabolic profiles have evaluated the consequences of consuming cocoa [96], coffee [97] and fiber [98], and of different dietary patterns [99].

Study of metabolites is only possible with advances in techniques that separate and identify small molecules [100]. However, there is not yet a methodology capable of detecting, identifying and quantifying all human metabolites. Combining techniques such as system-based mass spectrometry, nuclear magnetic resonance, gas chromatography and liquid chromatography may be a better approach for global metabolite identification [93]. As with GWAS, many chemicals and metabolites can be tested for and associated with diet and disease [16] through metabolome-wide studies.

Foodomics

Foodomics refers to a new science that evaluates food components using new technologies, with the aim of improving human health through improving human nutrition [101,102]. In recent years, food scientists have developed new products, packaging and sensory characteristics to better reach target markets [101]. Study of the molecular composition of foods enables such breakthroughs.

Foods originate from living things (animals, plants or fungi) and are affected by agricultural and production technologies. Food composition depends on many factors such as season, maturation and temperatures of storage and cooking. Foodomics can help solve problems related to food safety, food quality, new foods, transgenic foods and functional foods [103,104], improving dietary constituents and thereby better enabling disease prevention through diet.

Foodomics evaluates the effects of food components at the level of genome, transcriptome, proteome and metabolome, thus providing additional studies of bioactive compounds in food at the molecular level [85]. However, variability and differing concentrations of nutrients and bioactive food compounds create limitations in foodomics studies [93].

Examples of foodomics strategies include the study of oligosaccharides, phytochemicals, antioxidants, bioactive compounds, biotoxins and other factors [105]. Mass spectrometry-based techniques, new separation methods and multidimensional chromatographic techniques have been used in food composition analysis [105].

One complete, multidimensional definition of foodomics is that of a science that studies the role of biomarkers, food components, diets and lifestyle in reaching and maintaining health and wellness [106].

Metagenomics

Metagenomics refers to studies of the global microbial communities, and their genes present in the gut and other body parts [107,108]. Microbiota are able to alter gene expression, affecting the proteome and the health of an individual. Thus, they can be viewed as further functional, genomic units which regulate metabolic processes [107,109]. Many food constituents, such as polyphenols, fiber and fat, affect the microbiota in the gut and thereby can have microbiome-mediated effects.

Products of microbial fermentation such as short-chain fatty acids may have a direct effect on cellular metabolism [110]. Dysbiosis can result in inflammation in the luminal gut, contributing to risk and development of diseases [111] including obesity [111,112,113], diabetes and atherosclerosis [114,115], Crohn's disease [116], gastritis and gastrointestinal cancer [117] and food allergies [118]. Recent studies have associated nutrition during gestation and childhood with effects on the microbiota, and subsequent effects on immune function and immunocompetence to the onset of obesity and other chronic diseases [119].

Different dietary components have distinct roles in microbial growth and may modulate functions of the intestinal microbiome [120]; for example, the ingestion of phenolic compounds may modulate the microbiota, promoting the growth of beneficial bacteria [121]. The effect of diet on the microbiome depends on the age and environment of the individual [122], and on the genetic characteristics of the host [123,124]. Microbial exposure during pregnancy and the composition of gut microbiota during the first months of life influence immune function and predisposition to allergy [125].

The gut microbiome can also be associated with the progression of CVD, acting in the conversion of choline and L-carnitine present in the diet to trimethylamine and trimethylamine-N-oxide compounds [126]. CVD risk is associated with inflammation, risk of obesity and diabetes; thus, novel strategies of gut microbiome manipulation could lead to improvements in the treatment of CVD and obesity [126].

The gut microbiota are unique to each individual; consequently, the microbiome is emerging as a tool for personalized nutrition [127]. These new findings promote an alternative approach to regulation of gene expression through diet and food components. New technologies for analyzing the gut microbiome are needed, however, before metagenomics can usefully contribute to personalized nutrition [127].

Precision Nutrition

The response of an individual to nutrient intake results from the interaction of metabolic, environmental, social and genetic factors (fig. 2). Analysis of an individual's genome can distinguish responders from nonresponders to dietary interventions and treatments. Personalized nutrition depends on the genetic background plus biological and cultural variations, including food intolerances, preferences and allergies [33], where knowledge and integration will allow precision nutrition.

Fig. 2

The interplay between genetic background, biological, cultural and environmental variations on personalized nutrition.

http://www.karger.com/WebMaterial/ShowPic/506202

The traditional concept of personalized nutrition is to adapt the diet according to individual needs and preferences [128]. With the evolution of high-throughput technologies, precision nutrition can finally contribute to the reduction and prevention of disease by using genetic information to predict whether someone is going to respond to specific nutritional patterns or not [129]. Personalized nutrition is based on the principle that particular foods or nutrient quantities may alter disease risk more or less, depending on the individual's DNA sequence [130].

Precision nutrition can be considered as occurring at three levels: (1) conventional nutrition based on general guidelines for population groups by age, gender and social determinants; (2) individualized nutrition that adds phenotypic information about the person's current nutritional status (e.g. anthropometry, biochemical and metabolic analysis, physical activity, among others), and (3) genotype-directed nutrition based on rare or common gene variation [131]. The ultimate goal is to integrate such sources of information to ensure that health-care professionals, including dietitians, physicians, pharmacists and genetic counselors, know sufficient concepts about nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics to decide on the most appropriate level of care to achieve a precision nutrition which integrates phenotypical and genotypical issues as well as social, environmental and metabolic factors [132,133,134].

Conclusions

The use of new technologies is paving the way for solid individual nutritional recommendations with important challenges concerning strengthening the science, training personnel and improving knowledge delivery and public education (table 1). It is important that future studies utilize outcome research, not only considering the effects of a nutritional intervention on surrogate parameters in different genetic groups, but also looking at effects on disease development, survival and quality of life. This recognizes that recommendations based on the analysis of intermediate end points can be highly biased and potentially counteracted by opposite effects on some other intermediate end point that was not directly estimated in the investigation. The road ahead for the discipline must involve the integration of several different fields of study in order to formulate solid individualized nutritional recommendations.

Table 1

Major challenges of personalized nutrition

http://www.karger.com/WebMaterial/ShowPic/506204

Like drugs, nutrients have the ability to interact and modulate molecular mechanisms underlying an organism's physiological functions. Awareness of the different effects of nutrients according to our genetic constitution (nutrigenetics) and how nutrients may affect gene expression (nutrigenomics) is prompting a revolution in the field of nutrition. Nutritional sciences have traditionally studied the effects of nutrients in terms of ‘average' responses, largely without considering interindividual variability and the underlying causes. Advances in nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics, with distinct approaches to elucidate the interaction between diet and genes, but with the common ultimate goal of optimizing health through personalized diet, provide powerful approaches to unravel the complex relationships between nutritional molecules, genetic variants and the biological system. Translated as the simple concept of ‘personalized nutrition', the promise of nutrigenetics/nutrigenomics is a major step forward in the understanding of individual responses to a component nutrient or to our changing environment for precision nutrition.

A scientific society, such as the ISNN, internationally devoted to the study of nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics can indeed serve the commendable roles of (1) promoting science and favoring scientific communication, and (2) permanently working as a ‘clearing house' to prevent disqualifying logical jumps, correct or stop unwarranted claims, and prevent the creation of unwarranted expectations in patients and in the general public. Research and appropriate translation into medical practice and dietary recommendations must be based on a solid foundation of knowledge derived from studies on nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics.


References

  1. Simopoulos AP: Editorial. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 2008;1:2-3.
  2. Hesketh J: Personalised nutrition: how far has nutrigenomics progressed? Eur J Clin Nutr 2013;67:430-435.
  3. Simopoulos AP: Nutrigenetics/nutrigenomics. Annu Rev Public Health 2010;31:53-68.
  4. Nielsen DE, El-Sohemy A: A randomized trial of genetic information for personalized nutrition. Genes Nutr 2012;7:559-566.
  5. Kohlmeier M: Practical uses of nutrigenetics; in Kohlmeier M (ed): Nutrigenetics: Applying the Science of Personalised Nutrition. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2013, pp 307-333.
  6. Ferguson LR: Foods and personalized nutrition; in Ferguson LR (ed): Nutrigenomics and Nutrigenetics in Functional Foods and Personalized Nutrition. 1. New York, CRC Press, 2014, pp 3-23.
  7. United States Department of Agriculture: Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020, ed 8. 2015. http://healthgov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines.
  8. Sotos-Prieto M, Bhupathiraju SN, Mattei J, Fung TT, Li Y, Pan A, et al: Changes in diet quality scores and risk of cardiovascular disease among US men and women. Circulation 2015;132:2212-2219.
  9. de Roos B: Personalised nutrition: ready for practice? Proc Nutr Soc 2013;72:48-52.
  10. Fenech M, El-Sohemy A, Cahill L, Ferguson LR, French TA, Tai ES, et al: Nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics: viewpoints on the current status and applications in nutrition research and practice. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 2011;4:69-89.
  11. McCabe-Sellers B, Lovera D, Nuss H, Wise C, Ning B, Teitel C, et al: Personalizing nutrigenomics research through community based participatory research and omics technologies. OMICS 2008;12:263-272.
  12. Tucker KL, Smith CE, Lai CQ, Ordovas JM: Quantifying diet for nutrigenomic studies. Annu Rev Nutr 2013;33:349-371.
  13. Miggiano GA, De Sanctis R: Nutritional genomics: toward a personalized diet, in Italian. Clin Ter 2006;157:355-361.
    External Resources
  14. Vakili S, Caudill MA: Personalized nutrition: nutritional genomics as a potential tool for targeted medical nutrition therapy. Nutr Rev 2007;65:301-315.
  15. Kaput J: Nutrigenomics research for personalized nutrition and medicine. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2008;19:110-120.
  16. Jones DP, Park Y, Ziegler TR: Nutritional metabolomics: progress in addressing complexity in diet and health. Annu Rev Nutr 2012;32:183-202.
  17. Fallaize R, Macready AL, Butler LT, Ellis JA, Lovegrove JA: An insight into the public acceptance of nutrigenomic-based personalised nutrition. Nutr Res Rev 2013;26:39-48.
  18. Remely M, Lovrecic L, de la Garza AL, Migliore L, Peterlin B, Milagro FI, et al: Therapeutic perspectives of epigenetically active nutrients. Br J Pharmacol 2015;172:2756-2768.
  19. Pers TH, Timshel P, Hirschhorn JN: SNPsnap: a Web-based tool for identification and annotation of matched SNPs. Bioinformatics 2015;31:418-420.
  20. Maher B: Personal genomes: the case of the missing heritability. Nature 2008;456:18-21.
  21. Manolio TA, Collins FS, Cox NJ, Goldstein DB, Hindorff LA, Hunter DJ, et al: Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature 2009;461:747-753.
  22. van Ommen B: Personalized nutrition from a health perspective: luxury or necessity? Genes Nutr 2007;2:3-4.
  23. Trujillo E, Davis C, Milner J: Nutrigenomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and the practice of dietetics. J Am Diet Assoc 2006;106:403-413.
  24. Mooser V, Ordovas JM: ‘Omic' approaches and lipid metabolism: are these new technologies holding their promises? Curr Opin Lipidol 2003;14:115-119.
  25. Kaput J, Rodriguez RL: Nutritional genomics: the next frontier in the postgenomic era. Physiol Genomics 2004;16:166-177.
  26. Grody WW: Molecular genetic risk screening. Annu Rev Med 2003;54:473-490.
  27. Pang AW, MacDonald JR, Pinto D, Wei J, Rafiq MA, Conrad DF, et al: Towards a comprehensive structural variation map of an individual human genome. Genome Biol 2010;11:R52.
  28. Lupski JR: Genomic disorders: structural features of the genome can lead to DNA rearrangements and human disease traits. Trends Genet 1998;14:417-422.
  29. Chen L, Zhou W, Zhang L, Zhang F: Genome architecture and its roles in human copy number variation. Genomics Informatics 2014;12:136-144.
  30. Beckmann JS, Estivill X, Antonarakis SE: Copy number variants and genetic traits: closer to the resolution of phenotypic to genotypic variability. Nat Rev Genet 2007;8:639-646.
  31. Neeha VS, Kinth P: Nutrigenomics research: a review. J Food Sci Technol 2013;50:415-428.
  32. Martinez JA, Parra MD, Santos JL, Moreno-Aliaga MJ, Marti A, Martinez-Gonzalez MA: Genotype-dependent response to energy-restricted diets in obese subjects: towards personalized nutrition. Asia Pacific J Clin Nutr 2008;17(suppl 1):119-122.
    External Resources
  33. Martinez JA, Navas-Carretero S, Saris WH, Astrup A: Personalized weight loss strategies-the role of macronutrient distribution. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2014;10:749-760.
  34. Farooqi IS, O'Rahilly S: Genetics of obesity in humans. Endocr Rev 2006;10:710-718.
  35. Frayling TM, Timpson NJ, Weedon MN, Zeggini E, Freathy RM, Lindgren CM, et al: A common variant in the FTO gene is associated with body mass index and predisposes to childhood and adult obesity. Science 2007;316:889-894.
  36. Razquin C, Marti A, Martinez JA: Evidences on three relevant obesogenes: MC4R, FTO and PPARgamma. Approaches for personalized nutrition. Mol Nutr Food Res 2011;55:136-149.
  37. Wang J, Wang LJ, Zhong Y, Gu P, Shao JQ, Jiang SS, et al: CETP gene polymorphisms and risk of coronary atherosclerosis in a Chinese population. Lipids Health Disease 2013;12:176.
  38. Lu Y, Tayebi N, Li H, Saha N, Yang H, Heng CK: Association of CETP Taq1B and -629C > A polymorphisms with coronary artery disease and lipid levels in the multi-ethnic Singaporean population. Lipids Health Disease 2013;12:85.
  39. Huang D, Xie X, Ma YT, Huang Y, Ma X: Endothelial lipase-384A/C polymorphism is associated with acute coronary syndrome and lipid status in elderly Uygur patients in Xinjiang. Genet Testing Mol Biomarkers 2014;18:781-784.
  40. Knoblauch H, Bauerfeind A, Krahenbuhl C, Daury A, Rohde K, Bejanin S, et al: Common haplotypes in five genes influence genetic variance of LDL and HDL cholesterol in the general population. Hum Mol Genet 2002;11:1477-1485.
  41. Perez-Martinez P, Garcia-Rios A, Delgado-Lista J, Perez-Jimenez F, Lopez-Miranda J: Metabolic syndrome: evidences for a personalized nutrition. Mol Nutr Food Res 2012;56:67-76.
  42. Gong P, Madak-Erdogan Z, Li J, Cheng J, Greenlief CM, Helferich W, et al: Transcriptomic analysis identifies gene networks regulated by estrogen receptor alpha (ERalpha) and ERbeta that control distinct effects of different botanical estrogens. Nucl Recept Signal 2014;12:e001.
  43. Liew SC, Gupta ED: Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) C677T polymorphism: epidemiology, metabolism and the associated diseases. Eur J Med Genet 2015;58:1-10.
  44. Habel HJ, Duncavage EJ: Detection of structural DNA variation from next generation sequencing data: a review of informatic approaches. Cancer Genet 2014;206:432e40.
  45. Xu J, Wise C, Varma V, Fang H, Ning B, Hong H, et al: Two new ArrayTrack libraries for personalized biomedical research. BMC Bioinformatics 2010;11(suppl 6):S6.
  46. Chen M, Cho J, Zhao H: Incorporating biological pathways via a Markov random field model in genome-wide association studies. PLoS Genet 2011;7:e1001353.
  47. Shammas MA: Telomeres, lifestyle, cancer, and aging. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2011;14:28-34.
  48. Babizhayev MA, Savel'yeva EL, Moskvina SN, Yegorov YE: Telomere length is a biomarker of cumulative oxidative stress, biologic age, and an independent predictor of survival and therapeutic treatment requirement associated with smoking behavior. Am J Ther 2011;18:e209-e226.
  49. Mirabello L, Huang WY, Wong JY, Chatterjee N, Reding D, Crawford ED, et al: The association between leukocyte telomere length and cigarette smoking, dietary and physical variables, and risk of prostate cancer. Aging Cell 2009;8:405-413.
  50. Ornish D, Lin J, Daubenmier J, Weidner G, Epel E, Kemp C, et al: Increased telomerase activity and comprehensive lifestyle changes: a pilot study. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:1048-1057.
  51. Nettleton JA, Diez-Roux A, Jenny NS, Fitzpatrick AL, Jacobs DR Jr: Dietary patterns, food groups, and telomere length in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Am J Clin Nutr 2008;88:1405-1412.
    External Resources
  52. Garcia-Calzon S, Moleres A, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, Martinez JA, Zalba G, Marti A, et al: Dietary total antioxidant capacity is associated with leukocyte telomere length in a children and adolescent population. Clin Nutr 2015;34:694-699.
  53. Baturin AK, Sorokina E, Pogozheva AV, Tutel'ian VA: Genetic approaches to nutrition personalization (in Russian). Vopr Pitan 2012;81:4-11.
    External Resources
  54. Ordovas JM, Mooser V: Nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics. Curr Opin Lipidol 2004;15:101-108.
  55. Sebat J, Lakshmi B, Troge J, Alexander J, Young J, Lundin P, et al: Large-scale copy number polymorphism in the human genome. Science 2004;305:525-528.
  56. Osborne TF, Goldstein JL, Brown MS: 5′ end of HMG CoA reductase gene contains sequences responsible for cholesterol-mediated inhibition of transcription. Cell 1985;42:203-212.
  57. Kaminski WE, Jendraschak E, Kiefl R, von Schacky C: Dietary omega-3 fatty acids lower levels of platelet-derived growth factor mRNA in human mononuclear cells. Blood 1993;81:1871-1879.
    External Resources
  58. Robinson DR, Urakaze M, Huang R, Taki H, Sugiyama E, Knoell CT, et al: Dietary marine lipids suppress continuous expression of interleukin-1 beta gene transcription. Lipids 1996;31(suppl):S23-S31.
  59. Panagiotou G, Nielsen J: Nutritional systems biology: definitions and approaches. Annu Rev Nutr 2009;29:329-339.
  60. Phillips CM: Nutrigenetics and metabolic disease: current status and implications for personalised nutrition. Nutrients 2013;5:32-57.
  61. Afman LA, Muller M: Human nutrigenomics of gene regulation by dietary fatty acids. Prog Lipid Res 2012;51:63-70.
  62. Razin A, Szyf M: DNA methylation patterns. Formation and function. Biochim Biophys Acta 1984;782:331-342.
  63. Udali S, Guarini P, Moruzzi S, Choi SW, Friso S: Cardiovascular epigenetics: from DNA methylation to microRNAs. Mol Aspects Med 2013;34:883-901.
  64. Costa FF: Non-coding RNAs, epigenetics and complexity. Gene 2008;410:9-17.
  65. Saetrom P, Snove O Jr, Rossi JJ: Epigenetics and microRNAs. Pediatr Res 2007;61:17R-23R.
  66. Reik W, Dean W, Walter J: Epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development. Science 2001;293:1089-1093.
  67. Lister R, Pelizzola M, Dowen RH, Hawkins RD, Hon G, Tonti-Filippini J, et al: Human DNA methylomes at base resolution show widespread epigenomic differences. Nature 2009;462:315-322.
  68. Fu Y, He C: Nucleic acid modifications with epigenetic significance. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2012;16:516-524.
  69. Jia G, Yang CG, Yang S, Jian X, Yi C, Zhou Z, et al: Oxidative demethylation of 3-methylthymine and 3-methyluracil in single-stranded DNA and RNA by mouse and human FTO. FEBS Lett 2008;582:3313-3319.
  70. Mansego ML, Milagro FI, Campion J, Martinez JA: Techniques of DNA methylation analysis with nutritional applications. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 2013;6:83-96.
  71. Choi SW, Friso S: Epigenetics: a new bridge between nutrition and health. Adv Nutr 2010;1:8-16.
  72. Cheng X, Blumenthal RM: Coordinated chromatin control: structural and functional linkage of DNA and histone methylation. Biochemistry 2010;49:2999-3008.
  73. Anderson OS, Sant KE, Dolinoy DC: Nutrition and epigenetics: an interplay of dietary methyl donors, one-carbon metabolism and DNA methylation. J Nutr Biochem 2012;23:853-859.
  74. Kim KC, Friso S, Choi SW: DNA methylation, an epigenetic mechanism connecting folate to healthy embryonic development and aging. J Nutr Biochem 2009;20:917-926.
  75. Jang H, Mason JB, Choi SW: Genetic and epigenetic interactions between folate and aging in carcinogenesis. J Nutr 2005;135(suppl 12):2967S-2971S.
    External Resources
  76. McKay JA, Waltham KJ, Williams EA, Mathers JC: Folate depletion during pregnancy and lactation reduces genomic DNA methylation in murine adult offspring. Genes Nutr 2011;6:189-196.
  77. Hoile SP, Lillycrop KA, Grenfell LR, Hanson MA, Burdge GC: Increasing the folic acid content of maternal or post-weaning diets induces differential changes in phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase mRNA expression and promoter methylation in rats. Br J Nutr 2012;108:852-857.
  78. Martinez JA, Cordero P, Campion J, Milagro FI: Interplay of early-life nutritional programming on obesity, inflammation and epigenetic outcomes. Proc Nutr Soc 2012;71:276-283.
  79. Campion J, Milagro F, Martinez JA: Epigenetics and obesity. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci 2010;94:291-347.
    External Resources
  80. Milagro FI, Campion J, Cordero P, Goyenechea E, Gomez-Uriz AM, Abete I, et al: A dual epigenomic approach for the search of obesity biomarkers: DNA methylation in relation to diet-induced weight loss. FASEB J 2011;25:1378-1389.
  81. Ling C, Del Guerra S, Lupi R, Ronn T, Granhall C, Luthman H, et al: Epigenetic regulation of PPARGC1A in human type 2 diabetic islets and effect on insulin secretion. Diabetologia 2008;51:615-622.
  82. Ong ML, Lin X, Holbrook JD: Measuring epigenetics as the mediator of gene/environment interactions in DOHaD. J Dev Orig Health Dis 2015;6:10-16.
  83. Garcia-Canas V, Simo C, Leon C, Cifuentes A: Advances in nutrigenomics research: novel and future analytical approaches to investigate the biological activity of natural compounds and food functions. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2010;51:290-304.
  84. Anderson NL, Polanski M, Pieper R, Gatlin T, Tirumalai RS, Conrads TP, et al: The human plasma proteome: a nonredundant list developed by combination of four separate sources. Mol Cell Proteomics 2004;3:311-326.
  85. Wittwer J, Rubio-Aliaga I, Hoeft B, Bendik I, Weber P, Daniel H: Nutrigenomics in human intervention studies: current status, lessons learned and future perspectives. Mol Nutr Food Res 2011;55:341-358.
  86. Hyotylainen T, Bondia-Pons I, Oresic M: Lipidomics in nutrition and food research. Mol Nutr Food Res 2013;57:1306-1318.
  87. Dennis EA: Lipidomics joins the omics evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009;106:2089-2090.
  88. Gross RW, Han X: Lipidomics at the interface of structure and function in systems biology. Chem Biol 2011;18:284-291.
  89. Chait BT: Mass spectrometry in the postgenomic era. Annu Rev Biochem 2011;80:239-246.
  90. Smilowitz JT, Zivkovic AM, Wan YJ, Watkins SM, Nording ML, Hammock BD, et al: Nutritional lipidomics: molecular metabolism, analytics, and diagnostics. Mol Nutr Food Res 2013;57:1319-1335.
  91. Rezzi S, Martin FP, Kochhar S: Defining personal nutrition and metabolic health through metabonomics. Ernst Schering Found Symp Proc 2007;251-264.
  92. Claus SP, Swann JR: Nutrimetabonomics: applications for nutritional sciences, with specific reference to gut microbial interactions. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol 2013;4:381-399.
  93. Cifuentes A: Food analysis: present, future and foodomics. ISRN Analyt Chem 2012;84:1308-1319.
    External Resources
  94. Rimbach G, Boesch-Saadatmandi C, Frank J, Fuchs D, Wenzel U, Daniel H, et al: Dietary isoflavones in the prevention of cardiovascular disease - a molecular perspective. Food Chem Toxicol 2008;46:1308-1319.
  95. Wishart DS: Metabolomics: applications to food science and nutrition research. Trends Biotechnol 2008;19:482-493.
    External Resources
  96. Llorach R, Urpi-Sarda M, Tulipani S, Garcia-Aloy M, Monagas M, Andres-Lacueva C: Metabolomic fingerprint in patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease by cocoa intervention. Mol Nutr Food Res 2013;57:962-973.
  97. Redeuil K, Smarrito-Menozzi C, Guy P, Rezzi S, Dionisi F, Williamson G, et al: Identification of novel circulating coffee metabolites in human plasma by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 2011;1218:4678-4688.
  98. Johansson-Persson A, Barri T, Ulmius M, Onning G, Dragsted LO: LC-QTOF/MS metabolomic profiles in human plasma after a 5-week high dietary fiber intake. Anal Bioanal Chem 2013;405:4799-4809.
  99. Zulet MA, Bondia-Pons I, Abete I, de la Iglesia R, Lopez-Legarrea P, Forga L, et al: The reduction of the metabolyc syndrome in Navarra-Spain (RESMENA-S) study: a multidisciplinary strategy based on chrononutrition and nutritional education, together with dietetic and psychological control. Nutr Hosp 2011;26:16-26.
    External Resources
  100. Dunn WB, Bailey NJ, Johnson HE: Measuring the metabolome: current analytical technologies. Analyst 2005;130:606-625.
  101. Capozzi F, Bordoni A: Foodomics: a new comprehensive approach to food and nutrition. Genes Nutr 2013;8:1-4.
  102. Parslow V, Ferguson LR: Commercialization and potential nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics; in Ferguson LR (ed): Nutrigenomics and Nutrigenetics in Functional Foods and Personalized Nutrition. 1. New York, CRC Press, 2014, pp 305-331.
  103. Herrero M, Garcia-Canas V, Simo C, Cifuentes A: Recent advances in the application of capillary electromigration methods for food analysis and foodomics. Electrophoresis 2010;31:205-228.
  104. Herrero M, Simo C, Garcia-Canas V, Ibanez E, Cifuentes A: Foodomics: MS-based strategies in modern food science and nutrition. Mass Spectrom Rev 2012;31:49-69.
  105. Cifuentes A: Food analysis and foodomics. J Chromatogr A 2009;1216:7109.
  106. Bordoni A, Capozzi F: Foodomics for healthy nutrition. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2014;17:418-424.
  107. Sekirov I, Russell SL, Antunes LC, Finlay BB: Gut microbiota in health and disease. Physiol Rev 2010;90:859-904.
  108. Guarner F, Malagelada JR: Gut flora in health and disease. Lancet 2003;361:512-519.
  109. Collino S, Martin FP, Kochhar S, Rezzi S: Monitoring healthy metabolic trajectories with nutritional metabonomics. Nutrients 2009;1:101-110.
  110. Layden BT, Angueira AR, Brodsky M, Durai V, Lowe WL Jr: Short chain fatty acids and their receptors: new metabolic targets. Transl Res 2013;161:131-140.
  111. Cani PD, Everard A, Duparc T: Gut microbiota, enteroendocrine functions and metabolism. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2013;13:935-940.
  112. Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Mahowald MA, Magrini V, Mardis ER, Gordon JI: An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature 2006;444:1027-1031.
  113. Tagliabue A, Elli M: The role of gut microbiota in human obesity: recent findings and future perspectives. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2013;23:160-168.
  114. Fukuda S, Ohno H: Gut microbiome and metabolic diseases. Semin Immunopathol 2014;36:103-114.
  115. Lee CY: The effect of high-fat diet-induced pathophysiological changes in the gut on obesity: what should be the ideal treatment? Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2013;4:e39.
  116. Gupta P, Andrew H, Kirchner BS, Guandalini S: Is lactobacillus GG helpful in children with Crohn's disease? Results of a preliminary, open-label study. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2000;31:453-457.
  117. Marshall B: Helicobacter pylori: past, present and future. Keio J Med 2003;52:80-85.
  118. Bjorksten B, Sepp E, Julge K, Voor T, Mikelsaar M: Allergy development and the intestinal microflora during the first year of life. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001;108:516-520.
  119. Muegge BD, Kuczynski J, Knights D, Clemente JC, Gonzalez A, Fontana L, et al: Diet drives convergence in gut microbiome functions across mammalian phylogeny and within humans. Science 2011;332:970-974.
  120. Flint HJ: The impact of nutrition on the human microbiome. Nutr Rev 2012;70(suppl 1):S10-S13.
  121. Etxeberria U, Fernandez-Quintela A, Milagro FI, Aguirre L, Martinez JA, Portillo MP: Impact of polyphenols and polyphenol-rich dietary sources on gut microbiota composition. J Agric Food Chem 2013;61:9517-9533.
  122. Devkota S, Chang EB: Nutrition, microbiomes, and intestinal inflammation. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2013;29:603-607.
  123. Olivares M, Neef A, Castillejo G, Palma GD, Varea V, Capilla A, et al: The HLA-DQ2 genotype selects for early intestinal microbiota composition in infants at high risk of developing coeliac disease. Gut 2015;64:406-417.
  124. Kumar H, Wacklin P, Nakphaichit M, Loyttyniemi E, Chowdhury S, Shouche Y, et al: Secretor status is strongly associated with microbial alterations observed during pregnancy. PLoS One 2015;10:e0134623.
  125. Abrahamsson TR, Wu RY, Jenmalm MC: Gut microbiota and allergy: the importance of the pregnancy period. Pediatr Res 2015;77:214-219.
  126. Mendelsohn AR, Larrick JW: Dietary modification of the microbiome affects risk for cardiovascular disease. Rejuvenation Res 2013;16:241-244.
  127. Kang JX: Gut microbiota and personalized nutrition. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 2013;6:I-II.
  128. Rubio-Aliaga I, Kochhar S, Silva-Zolezzi I: Biomarkers of nutrient bioactivity and efficacy: a route toward personalized nutrition. J Clin Gastroenterol 2012;46:545-554.
  129. Fenech M: Genome health nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics - diagnosis and nutritional treatment of genome damage on an individual basis. Food Chem Toxicol 2008;46:1365-1370.
  130. Kang JX: Future directions in nutrition research. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 2013;6:I-III.
  131. Gibney MJ, Walsh MC: The future direction of personalised nutrition: my diet, my phenotype, my genes. Proc Nutr Soc 2013;72:219-225.
  132. Martínez JA: Perspectives on personalized nutrition for obesity. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 2014;7:188-190.
  133. Juma S, Imrham V, Vijayagopal P, Prasad C: Prescribing personalized nutrition for cardiovascular health: are we ready? J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 2014;7:153-160.
  134. Bahcall O: Precision medicine. Nature 2015;526:335.

Author Contacts

Prof. J. Alfredo Martinez

Department of Nutrition, Food Science and Physiology

University of Navarra, Irunlarrea 1

ES-31008 Pamplona (Spain)

E-Mail jalfmtz@unav.es


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of 9th Congress of the International Society of Nutrigenetics/Nutrigenomics

Published online: May 12, 2016
Issue release date: June 2016

Number of Print Pages: 16
Number of Figures: 2
Number of Tables: 1

ISSN: 1661-6499 (Print)
eISSN: 1661-6758 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/JNN


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Simopoulos AP: Editorial. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 2008;1:2-3.
  2. Hesketh J: Personalised nutrition: how far has nutrigenomics progressed? Eur J Clin Nutr 2013;67:430-435.
  3. Simopoulos AP: Nutrigenetics/nutrigenomics. Annu Rev Public Health 2010;31:53-68.
  4. Nielsen DE, El-Sohemy A: A randomized trial of genetic information for personalized nutrition. Genes Nutr 2012;7:559-566.
  5. Kohlmeier M: Practical uses of nutrigenetics; in Kohlmeier M (ed): Nutrigenetics: Applying the Science of Personalised Nutrition. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2013, pp 307-333.
  6. Ferguson LR: Foods and personalized nutrition; in Ferguson LR (ed): Nutrigenomics and Nutrigenetics in Functional Foods and Personalized Nutrition. 1. New York, CRC Press, 2014, pp 3-23.
  7. United States Department of Agriculture: Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020, ed 8. 2015. http://healthgov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines.
  8. Sotos-Prieto M, Bhupathiraju SN, Mattei J, Fung TT, Li Y, Pan A, et al: Changes in diet quality scores and risk of cardiovascular disease among US men and women. Circulation 2015;132:2212-2219.
  9. de Roos B: Personalised nutrition: ready for practice? Proc Nutr Soc 2013;72:48-52.
  10. Fenech M, El-Sohemy A, Cahill L, Ferguson LR, French TA, Tai ES, et al: Nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics: viewpoints on the current status and applications in nutrition research and practice. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 2011;4:69-89.
  11. McCabe-Sellers B, Lovera D, Nuss H, Wise C, Ning B, Teitel C, et al: Personalizing nutrigenomics research through community based participatory research and omics technologies. OMICS 2008;12:263-272.
  12. Tucker KL, Smith CE, Lai CQ, Ordovas JM: Quantifying diet for nutrigenomic studies. Annu Rev Nutr 2013;33:349-371.
  13. Miggiano GA, De Sanctis R: Nutritional genomics: toward a personalized diet, in Italian. Clin Ter 2006;157:355-361.
    External Resources
  14. Vakili S, Caudill MA: Personalized nutrition: nutritional genomics as a potential tool for targeted medical nutrition therapy. Nutr Rev 2007;65:301-315.
  15. Kaput J: Nutrigenomics research for personalized nutrition and medicine. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2008;19:110-120.
  16. Jones DP, Park Y, Ziegler TR: Nutritional metabolomics: progress in addressing complexity in diet and health. Annu Rev Nutr 2012;32:183-202.
  17. Fallaize R, Macready AL, Butler LT, Ellis JA, Lovegrove JA: An insight into the public acceptance of nutrigenomic-based personalised nutrition. Nutr Res Rev 2013;26:39-48.
  18. Remely M, Lovrecic L, de la Garza AL, Migliore L, Peterlin B, Milagro FI, et al: Therapeutic perspectives of epigenetically active nutrients. Br J Pharmacol 2015;172:2756-2768.
  19. Pers TH, Timshel P, Hirschhorn JN: SNPsnap: a Web-based tool for identification and annotation of matched SNPs. Bioinformatics 2015;31:418-420.
  20. Maher B: Personal genomes: the case of the missing heritability. Nature 2008;456:18-21.
  21. Manolio TA, Collins FS, Cox NJ, Goldstein DB, Hindorff LA, Hunter DJ, et al: Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature 2009;461:747-753.
  22. van Ommen B: Personalized nutrition from a health perspective: luxury or necessity? Genes Nutr 2007;2:3-4.
  23. Trujillo E, Davis C, Milner J: Nutrigenomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and the practice of dietetics. J Am Diet Assoc 2006;106:403-413.
  24. Mooser V, Ordovas JM: ‘Omic' approaches and lipid metabolism: are these new technologies holding their promises? Curr Opin Lipidol 2003;14:115-119.
  25. Kaput J, Rodriguez RL: Nutritional genomics: the next frontier in the postgenomic era. Physiol Genomics 2004;16:166-177.
  26. Grody WW: Molecular genetic risk screening. Annu Rev Med 2003;54:473-490.
  27. Pang AW, MacDonald JR, Pinto D, Wei J, Rafiq MA, Conrad DF, et al: Towards a comprehensive structural variation map of an individual human genome. Genome Biol 2010;11:R52.
  28. Lupski JR: Genomic disorders: structural features of the genome can lead to DNA rearrangements and human disease traits. Trends Genet 1998;14:417-422.
  29. Chen L, Zhou W, Zhang L, Zhang F: Genome architecture and its roles in human copy number variation. Genomics Informatics 2014;12:136-144.
  30. Beckmann JS, Estivill X, Antonarakis SE: Copy number variants and genetic traits: closer to the resolution of phenotypic to genotypic variability. Nat Rev Genet 2007;8:639-646.
  31. Neeha VS, Kinth P: Nutrigenomics research: a review. J Food Sci Technol 2013;50:415-428.
  32. Martinez JA, Parra MD, Santos JL, Moreno-Aliaga MJ, Marti A, Martinez-Gonzalez MA: Genotype-dependent response to energy-restricted diets in obese subjects: towards personalized nutrition. Asia Pacific J Clin Nutr 2008;17(suppl 1):119-122.
    External Resources
  33. Martinez JA, Navas-Carretero S, Saris WH, Astrup A: Personalized weight loss strategies-the role of macronutrient distribution. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2014;10:749-760.
  34. Farooqi IS, O'Rahilly S: Genetics of obesity in humans. Endocr Rev 2006;10:710-718.
  35. Frayling TM, Timpson NJ, Weedon MN, Zeggini E, Freathy RM, Lindgren CM, et al: A common variant in the FTO gene is associated with body mass index and predisposes to childhood and adult obesity. Science 2007;316:889-894.
  36. Razquin C, Marti A, Martinez JA: Evidences on three relevant obesogenes: MC4R, FTO and PPARgamma. Approaches for personalized nutrition. Mol Nutr Food Res 2011;55:136-149.
  37. Wang J, Wang LJ, Zhong Y, Gu P, Shao JQ, Jiang SS, et al: CETP gene polymorphisms and risk of coronary atherosclerosis in a Chinese population. Lipids Health Disease 2013;12:176.
  38. Lu Y, Tayebi N, Li H, Saha N, Yang H, Heng CK: Association of CETP Taq1B and -629C > A polymorphisms with coronary artery disease and lipid levels in the multi-ethnic Singaporean population. Lipids Health Disease 2013;12:85.
  39. Huang D, Xie X, Ma YT, Huang Y, Ma X: Endothelial lipase-384A/C polymorphism is associated with acute coronary syndrome and lipid status in elderly Uygur patients in Xinjiang. Genet Testing Mol Biomarkers 2014;18:781-784.
  40. Knoblauch H, Bauerfeind A, Krahenbuhl C, Daury A, Rohde K, Bejanin S, et al: Common haplotypes in five genes influence genetic variance of LDL and HDL cholesterol in the general population. Hum Mol Genet 2002;11:1477-1485.
  41. Perez-Martinez P, Garcia-Rios A, Delgado-Lista J, Perez-Jimenez F, Lopez-Miranda J: Metabolic syndrome: evidences for a personalized nutrition. Mol Nutr Food Res 2012;56:67-76.
  42. Gong P, Madak-Erdogan Z, Li J, Cheng J, Greenlief CM, Helferich W, et al: Transcriptomic analysis identifies gene networks regulated by estrogen receptor alpha (ERalpha) and ERbeta that control distinct effects of different botanical estrogens. Nucl Recept Signal 2014;12:e001.
  43. Liew SC, Gupta ED: Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) C677T polymorphism: epidemiology, metabolism and the associated diseases. Eur J Med Genet 2015;58:1-10.
  44. Habel HJ, Duncavage EJ: Detection of structural DNA variation from next generation sequencing data: a review of informatic approaches. Cancer Genet 2014;206:432e40.
  45. Xu J, Wise C, Varma V, Fang H, Ning B, Hong H, et al: Two new ArrayTrack libraries for personalized biomedical research. BMC Bioinformatics 2010;11(suppl 6):S6.
  46. Chen M, Cho J, Zhao H: Incorporating biological pathways via a Markov random field model in genome-wide association studies. PLoS Genet 2011;7:e1001353.
  47. Shammas MA: Telomeres, lifestyle, cancer, and aging. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2011;14:28-34.
  48. Babizhayev MA, Savel'yeva EL, Moskvina SN, Yegorov YE: Telomere length is a biomarker of cumulative oxidative stress, biologic age, and an independent predictor of survival and therapeutic treatment requirement associated with smoking behavior. Am J Ther 2011;18:e209-e226.
  49. Mirabello L, Huang WY, Wong JY, Chatterjee N, Reding D, Crawford ED, et al: The association between leukocyte telomere length and cigarette smoking, dietary and physical variables, and risk of prostate cancer. Aging Cell 2009;8:405-413.
  50. Ornish D, Lin J, Daubenmier J, Weidner G, Epel E, Kemp C, et al: Increased telomerase activity and comprehensive lifestyle changes: a pilot study. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:1048-1057.
  51. Nettleton JA, Diez-Roux A, Jenny NS, Fitzpatrick AL, Jacobs DR Jr: Dietary patterns, food groups, and telomere length in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Am J Clin Nutr 2008;88:1405-1412.
    External Resources
  52. Garcia-Calzon S, Moleres A, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, Martinez JA, Zalba G, Marti A, et al: Dietary total antioxidant capacity is associated with leukocyte telomere length in a children and adolescent population. Clin Nutr 2015;34:694-699.
  53. Baturin AK, Sorokina E, Pogozheva AV, Tutel'ian VA: Genetic approaches to nutrition personalization (in Russian). Vopr Pitan 2012;81:4-11.
    External Resources
  54. Ordovas JM, Mooser V: Nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics. Curr Opin Lipidol 2004;15:101-108.
  55. Sebat J, Lakshmi B, Troge J, Alexander J, Young J, Lundin P, et al: Large-scale copy number polymorphism in the human genome. Science 2004;305:525-528.
  56. Osborne TF, Goldstein JL, Brown MS: 5′ end of HMG CoA reductase gene contains sequences responsible for cholesterol-mediated inhibition of transcription. Cell 1985;42:203-212.
  57. Kaminski WE, Jendraschak E, Kiefl R, von Schacky C: Dietary omega-3 fatty acids lower levels of platelet-derived growth factor mRNA in human mononuclear cells. Blood 1993;81:1871-1879.
    External Resources
  58. Robinson DR, Urakaze M, Huang R, Taki H, Sugiyama E, Knoell CT, et al: Dietary marine lipids suppress continuous expression of interleukin-1 beta gene transcription. Lipids 1996;31(suppl):S23-S31.
  59. Panagiotou G, Nielsen J: Nutritional systems biology: definitions and approaches. Annu Rev Nutr 2009;29:329-339.
  60. Phillips CM: Nutrigenetics and metabolic disease: current status and implications for personalised nutrition. Nutrients 2013;5:32-57.
  61. Afman LA, Muller M: Human nutrigenomics of gene regulation by dietary fatty acids. Prog Lipid Res 2012;51:63-70.
  62. Razin A, Szyf M: DNA methylation patterns. Formation and function. Biochim Biophys Acta 1984;782:331-342.
  63. Udali S, Guarini P, Moruzzi S, Choi SW, Friso S: Cardiovascular epigenetics: from DNA methylation to microRNAs. Mol Aspects Med 2013;34:883-901.
  64. Costa FF: Non-coding RNAs, epigenetics and complexity. Gene 2008;410:9-17.
  65. Saetrom P, Snove O Jr, Rossi JJ: Epigenetics and microRNAs. Pediatr Res 2007;61:17R-23R.
  66. Reik W, Dean W, Walter J: Epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development. Science 2001;293:1089-1093.
  67. Lister R, Pelizzola M, Dowen RH, Hawkins RD, Hon G, Tonti-Filippini J, et al: Human DNA methylomes at base resolution show widespread epigenomic differences. Nature 2009;462:315-322.
  68. Fu Y, He C: Nucleic acid modifications with epigenetic significance. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2012;16:516-524.
  69. Jia G, Yang CG, Yang S, Jian X, Yi C, Zhou Z, et al: Oxidative demethylation of 3-methylthymine and 3-methyluracil in single-stranded DNA and RNA by mouse and human FTO. FEBS Lett 2008;582:3313-3319.
  70. Mansego ML, Milagro FI, Campion J, Martinez JA: Techniques of DNA methylation analysis with nutritional applications. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 2013;6:83-96.
  71. Choi SW, Friso S: Epigenetics: a new bridge between nutrition and health. Adv Nutr 2010;1:8-16.
  72. Cheng X, Blumenthal RM: Coordinated chromatin control: structural and functional linkage of DNA and histone methylation. Biochemistry 2010;49:2999-3008.
  73. Anderson OS, Sant KE, Dolinoy DC: Nutrition and epigenetics: an interplay of dietary methyl donors, one-carbon metabolism and DNA methylation. J Nutr Biochem 2012;23:853-859.
  74. Kim KC, Friso S, Choi SW: DNA methylation, an epigenetic mechanism connecting folate to healthy embryonic development and aging. J Nutr Biochem 2009;20:917-926.
  75. Jang H, Mason JB, Choi SW: Genetic and epigenetic interactions between folate and aging in carcinogenesis. J Nutr 2005;135(suppl 12):2967S-2971S.
    External Resources
  76. McKay JA, Waltham KJ, Williams EA, Mathers JC: Folate depletion during pregnancy and lactation reduces genomic DNA methylation in murine adult offspring. Genes Nutr 2011;6:189-196.
  77. Hoile SP, Lillycrop KA, Grenfell LR, Hanson MA, Burdge GC: Increasing the folic acid content of maternal or post-weaning diets induces differential changes in phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase mRNA expression and promoter methylation in rats. Br J Nutr 2012;108:852-857.
  78. Martinez JA, Cordero P, Campion J, Milagro FI: Interplay of early-life nutritional programming on obesity, inflammation and epigenetic outcomes. Proc Nutr Soc 2012;71:276-283.
  79. Campion J, Milagro F, Martinez JA: Epigenetics and obesity. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci 2010;94:291-347.
    External Resources
  80. Milagro FI, Campion J, Cordero P, Goyenechea E, Gomez-Uriz AM, Abete I, et al: A dual epigenomic approach for the search of obesity biomarkers: DNA methylation in relation to diet-induced weight loss. FASEB J 2011;25:1378-1389.
  81. Ling C, Del Guerra S, Lupi R, Ronn T, Granhall C, Luthman H, et al: Epigenetic regulation of PPARGC1A in human type 2 diabetic islets and effect on insulin secretion. Diabetologia 2008;51:615-622.
  82. Ong ML, Lin X, Holbrook JD: Measuring epigenetics as the mediator of gene/environment interactions in DOHaD. J Dev Orig Health Dis 2015;6:10-16.
  83. Garcia-Canas V, Simo C, Leon C, Cifuentes A: Advances in nutrigenomics research: novel and future analytical approaches to investigate the biological activity of natural compounds and food functions. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2010;51:290-304.
  84. Anderson NL, Polanski M, Pieper R, Gatlin T, Tirumalai RS, Conrads TP, et al: The human plasma proteome: a nonredundant list developed by combination of four separate sources. Mol Cell Proteomics 2004;3:311-326.
  85. Wittwer J, Rubio-Aliaga I, Hoeft B, Bendik I, Weber P, Daniel H: Nutrigenomics in human intervention studies: current status, lessons learned and future perspectives. Mol Nutr Food Res 2011;55:341-358.
  86. Hyotylainen T, Bondia-Pons I, Oresic M: Lipidomics in nutrition and food research. Mol Nutr Food Res 2013;57:1306-1318.
  87. Dennis EA: Lipidomics joins the omics evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009;106:2089-2090.
  88. Gross RW, Han X: Lipidomics at the interface of structure and function in systems biology. Chem Biol 2011;18:284-291.
  89. Chait BT: Mass spectrometry in the postgenomic era. Annu Rev Biochem 2011;80:239-246.
  90. Smilowitz JT, Zivkovic AM, Wan YJ, Watkins SM, Nording ML, Hammock BD, et al: Nutritional lipidomics: molecular metabolism, analytics, and diagnostics. Mol Nutr Food Res 2013;57:1319-1335.
  91. Rezzi S, Martin FP, Kochhar S: Defining personal nutrition and metabolic health through metabonomics. Ernst Schering Found Symp Proc 2007;251-264.
  92. Claus SP, Swann JR: Nutrimetabonomics: applications for nutritional sciences, with specific reference to gut microbial interactions. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol 2013;4:381-399.
  93. Cifuentes A: Food analysis: present, future and foodomics. ISRN Analyt Chem 2012;84:1308-1319.
    External Resources
  94. Rimbach G, Boesch-Saadatmandi C, Frank J, Fuchs D, Wenzel U, Daniel H, et al: Dietary isoflavones in the prevention of cardiovascular disease - a molecular perspective. Food Chem Toxicol 2008;46:1308-1319.
  95. Wishart DS: Metabolomics: applications to food science and nutrition research. Trends Biotechnol 2008;19:482-493.
    External Resources
  96. Llorach R, Urpi-Sarda M, Tulipani S, Garcia-Aloy M, Monagas M, Andres-Lacueva C: Metabolomic fingerprint in patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease by cocoa intervention. Mol Nutr Food Res 2013;57:962-973.
  97. Redeuil K, Smarrito-Menozzi C, Guy P, Rezzi S, Dionisi F, Williamson G, et al: Identification of novel circulating coffee metabolites in human plasma by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 2011;1218:4678-4688.
  98. Johansson-Persson A, Barri T, Ulmius M, Onning G, Dragsted LO: LC-QTOF/MS metabolomic profiles in human plasma after a 5-week high dietary fiber intake. Anal Bioanal Chem 2013;405:4799-4809.
  99. Zulet MA, Bondia-Pons I, Abete I, de la Iglesia R, Lopez-Legarrea P, Forga L, et al: The reduction of the metabolyc syndrome in Navarra-Spain (RESMENA-S) study: a multidisciplinary strategy based on chrononutrition and nutritional education, together with dietetic and psychological control. Nutr Hosp 2011;26:16-26.
    External Resources
  100. Dunn WB, Bailey NJ, Johnson HE: Measuring the metabolome: current analytical technologies. Analyst 2005;130:606-625.
  101. Capozzi F, Bordoni A: Foodomics: a new comprehensive approach to food and nutrition. Genes Nutr 2013;8:1-4.
  102. Parslow V, Ferguson LR: Commercialization and potential nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics; in Ferguson LR (ed): Nutrigenomics and Nutrigenetics in Functional Foods and Personalized Nutrition. 1. New York, CRC Press, 2014, pp 305-331.
  103. Herrero M, Garcia-Canas V, Simo C, Cifuentes A: Recent advances in the application of capillary electromigration methods for food analysis and foodomics. Electrophoresis 2010;31:205-228.
  104. Herrero M, Simo C, Garcia-Canas V, Ibanez E, Cifuentes A: Foodomics: MS-based strategies in modern food science and nutrition. Mass Spectrom Rev 2012;31:49-69.
  105. Cifuentes A: Food analysis and foodomics. J Chromatogr A 2009;1216:7109.
  106. Bordoni A, Capozzi F: Foodomics for healthy nutrition. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2014;17:418-424.
  107. Sekirov I, Russell SL, Antunes LC, Finlay BB: Gut microbiota in health and disease. Physiol Rev 2010;90:859-904.
  108. Guarner F, Malagelada JR: Gut flora in health and disease. Lancet 2003;361:512-519.
  109. Collino S, Martin FP, Kochhar S, Rezzi S: Monitoring healthy metabolic trajectories with nutritional metabonomics. Nutrients 2009;1:101-110.
  110. Layden BT, Angueira AR, Brodsky M, Durai V, Lowe WL Jr: Short chain fatty acids and their receptors: new metabolic targets. Transl Res 2013;161:131-140.
  111. Cani PD, Everard A, Duparc T: Gut microbiota, enteroendocrine functions and metabolism. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2013;13:935-940.
  112. Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Mahowald MA, Magrini V, Mardis ER, Gordon JI: An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature 2006;444:1027-1031.
  113. Tagliabue A, Elli M: The role of gut microbiota in human obesity: recent findings and future perspectives. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2013;23:160-168.
  114. Fukuda S, Ohno H: Gut microbiome and metabolic diseases. Semin Immunopathol 2014;36:103-114.
  115. Lee CY: The effect of high-fat diet-induced pathophysiological changes in the gut on obesity: what should be the ideal treatment? Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2013;4:e39.
  116. Gupta P, Andrew H, Kirchner BS, Guandalini S: Is lactobacillus GG helpful in children with Crohn's disease? Results of a preliminary, open-label study. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2000;31:453-457.
  117. Marshall B: Helicobacter pylori: past, present and future. Keio J Med 2003;52:80-85.
  118. Bjorksten B, Sepp E, Julge K, Voor T, Mikelsaar M: Allergy development and the intestinal microflora during the first year of life. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001;108:516-520.
  119. Muegge BD, Kuczynski J, Knights D, Clemente JC, Gonzalez A, Fontana L, et al: Diet drives convergence in gut microbiome functions across mammalian phylogeny and within humans. Science 2011;332:970-974.
  120. Flint HJ: The impact of nutrition on the human microbiome. Nutr Rev 2012;70(suppl 1):S10-S13.
  121. Etxeberria U, Fernandez-Quintela A, Milagro FI, Aguirre L, Martinez JA, Portillo MP: Impact of polyphenols and polyphenol-rich dietary sources on gut microbiota composition. J Agric Food Chem 2013;61:9517-9533.
  122. Devkota S, Chang EB: Nutrition, microbiomes, and intestinal inflammation. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2013;29:603-607.
  123. Olivares M, Neef A, Castillejo G, Palma GD, Varea V, Capilla A, et al: The HLA-DQ2 genotype selects for early intestinal microbiota composition in infants at high risk of developing coeliac disease. Gut 2015;64:406-417.
  124. Kumar H, Wacklin P, Nakphaichit M, Loyttyniemi E, Chowdhury S, Shouche Y, et al: Secretor status is strongly associated with microbial alterations observed during pregnancy. PLoS One 2015;10:e0134623.
  125. Abrahamsson TR, Wu RY, Jenmalm MC: Gut microbiota and allergy: the importance of the pregnancy period. Pediatr Res 2015;77:214-219.
  126. Mendelsohn AR, Larrick JW: Dietary modification of the microbiome affects risk for cardiovascular disease. Rejuvenation Res 2013;16:241-244.
  127. Kang JX: Gut microbiota and personalized nutrition. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 2013;6:I-II.
  128. Rubio-Aliaga I, Kochhar S, Silva-Zolezzi I: Biomarkers of nutrient bioactivity and efficacy: a route toward personalized nutrition. J Clin Gastroenterol 2012;46:545-554.
  129. Fenech M: Genome health nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics - diagnosis and nutritional treatment of genome damage on an individual basis. Food Chem Toxicol 2008;46:1365-1370.
  130. Kang JX: Future directions in nutrition research. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 2013;6:I-III.
  131. Gibney MJ, Walsh MC: The future direction of personalised nutrition: my diet, my phenotype, my genes. Proc Nutr Soc 2013;72:219-225.
  132. Martínez JA: Perspectives on personalized nutrition for obesity. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 2014;7:188-190.
  133. Juma S, Imrham V, Vijayagopal P, Prasad C: Prescribing personalized nutrition for cardiovascular health: are we ready? J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 2014;7:153-160.
  134. Bahcall O: Precision medicine. Nature 2015;526:335.
ppt logo Download Images (.pptx)


Figures
Thumbnail
Thumbnail

Tables
Thumbnail