Lanzamiento Enero 2027

Revisión sistemática2024Solo mecanismosAcceso abierto

Genetic Variability Impacts Genotoxic and Transcriptome Responses in the Human Colon after the Consumption of Processed Red Meat Products and Those with Added Phytochemical Extracts

DeBenedictis JN, Baars E, Ochoteco-Asensio J, van Breda SG, de Kok TM

Nutrients · 5 citas

Etiquetas de revisión

Solo mecanismos

Datos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.

Cómo se estudió

Diseño
Revisión sistemática (indexado por PubMed)
Estudiado en
Personas
Resultado principal
Solo mecanismos
Consumo medido con
No se indica

Quién lo pagó

Financiación
Financiación independiente
Gobierno
FP7 EU-project PHYTOME

Según 1 financiador declarado y la declaración de financiación del texto completo.

Publicación

Publicado
2024-01-31 · Nutrients · vol. 16 · número 3 · pág. 425
Editorial
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Citado
8 citas · más que el 90% de estudios similares · 2.8× el promedio de su campo
Referencias
90 trabajos
Acceso
Acceso abierto (revista) · CC-BY
Áreas de investigación
Nutrition, Genetics, and Disease · Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Glutathione Transferases and Polymorphisms
Palabras clave
Biology, Genotype, Genetics, Transcriptome, Allele, Single-nucleotide polymorphism, Genetic variation, Wild type, Genetic variability, Gene, Gene expression
MeSH
colon, humans, dna damage, nitroso compounds, dna adducts, meat, meat products, transcriptome, red meat

5 autores

  • Julia Nicole DeBenedictis🇳🇱Maastricht University
  • Esther Baars🇳🇱Maastricht University
  • Juan Ochoteco Asensio🇳🇱Maastricht University
  • Simone G. van Breda🇳🇱 · autor de correspondenciaMaastricht University
  • Theo M. C. M. de Kok🇳🇱Maastricht University

Resumen

El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.

The PHYTOME study investigated the effect of consuming processed meat products on outcomes related to colorectal cancer risk without testing the impact of genetic variability on these responses. This research aims to elucidate the genetic impact on apparent total N-nitroso compound (ATNC) excretion, colonic DNA adduct formation, ex vivo-induced DNA damage, and gene expression changes in colon biopsies of healthy participants. Through a systematic literature review, candidate polymorphisms were selected and then detected using TaqMan and PCR analysis. The effect of genotype on study outcomes was determined via a linear mixed model and analysis of variance. Machine learning was used to evaluate relative allele importance concerning genotoxic responses, which established a ranking of the most protective alleles and a combination of genotypes (gene scores). Participants were grouped by GSTM1 genotype and differentially expressed genes (DEGs), and overrepresented biological pathways were compared between groups. Stratifying participants by ten relevant genes revealed significant variations in outcome responses. After consumption of processed red meat, variations in NQO1 and COMT impacted responses in ATNC levels (µmol/L) (+9.56 for wildtype vs. heterozygous) and DNA adduct levels (pg/µg DNA) (+1.26 for variant vs. wildtype and +0.43 for variant vs. heterozygous), respectively. After phytochemicals were added to the meat, GSTM1 variation impacted changes in DNA adduct levels (-6.12 for deletion vs. wildtype). The gene scores correlated with these responses and DEGs were identified by GSTM1 genotype. The altered pathways specific to the GSTM1 wildtype group included 'metabolism', 'cell cycle', 'vitamin D receptor', and 'metabolism of water-soluble vitamins and co-factors'. Genotype impacted both the potential genotoxicity of processed red meat and the efficacy of protective phytochemical extracts.

Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial (CC BY).

Confianza de la comunidad

Cargando…

¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?

0 · nada10 · totalmente

Comentarios

¿Algo está mal aquí?

Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.

Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.