| Literature DB >> 24765243 |
Daniel Belstrøm1, Palle Holmstrup1, Claus H Nielsen2, Nikolai Kirkby3, Svante Twetman4, Berit L Heitmann5, Vanja Klepac-Ceraj6, Bruce J Paster7, Nils-Erik Fiehn8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Keywords: HOMIM; bacteria; diet lifestyle; saliva
Year: 2014 PMID: 24765243 PMCID: PMC3974179 DOI: 10.3402/jom.v6.23609
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oral Microbiol ISSN: 2000-2297 Impact factor: 5.474
Population characteristics
| Mean (SD) | Range | Lower quintile | Upper quintile | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 55 (13) | 20–81 | 35 (5) | 71 (4) |
| BMI | 25.1 (3.7) | 17.8–38.4 | 20.4 (1.2) | 30.6 (2.4) |
| Alcohol intake (units/week) | 7.7 (7.2) | 0–48 | 0.3 (0.6) | 19.5 (6.5) |
| Energy intake from fat (%) | 30.8 (9.8) | 3.8–86.5 | 19.3 (4.6) | 44.5 (10.6) |
| Energy intake from protein (%) | 17.0 (4.2) | 4.3–36.5 | 11.8 (1.8) | 23.0 (3.8) |
| Energy intake from carbohydrates (%) | 52.2 (9.1) | 9.1–79.1 | 39.0 (7.6) | 63.6 (4.1) |
| Proportions of carbohydrates originating from added sugar (%) | 10.8 (7.4) | 0–52 | 3.3 (1.3) | 22.3 (7.6) |
Fig. 1Flowchart of sample selection and group establishment.
Fig. 2Principal component analysis of smoking status. Smokers (blue, n=21) and non-smokers (red, n=271) displayed 2-dimensionally with principal component analysis by the 2 principal components, accounting for 30.8% of the variation of the dataset using mean HOMIM-value (level), as parameter for investigation.
Fig. 3Differences at taxon/cluster level by socioeconomic status. A. The 20 statistically significant probes are presented based on presence (%) of total amount of samples in the high and low socioeconomic status subgroup, respectively. Black bars: low socioeconomic status subgroup. White bars: high socioeconomic status subgroup. *Adjusted p-value < 0.01, *adjusted p-value < 0.001, ***adjusted p-value < 1.0×10−4, ****adjusted p-value < 1.0×10−6. B. Levels (mean HOMIM-value) of the 25 statistically significant probes are visualized based on means of HOMIM-value in samples from the high and low socioeconomic status subgroup. Black bars: low socioeconomic status subgroup. White bars: high socioeconomic status subgroup. *Adjusted p-value < 0.01, **adjusted p-value < 0.001, ***adjusted p-value < 1.0×10−5, ****adjusted p-value < 1.0×10−12.
Fig. 4Principal component analysis of socioeconomic status. The subgroup with high socioeconomic status (blue, n=133) and the subgroup with low socioeconomic status (red, n=159) visualized 2-dimensionally by principal component analysis, with axes expressing the 2 most crucial components accounting for 30.8% of the total variation of the dataset.