| Literature DB >> 26084032 |
Richard K Le Leu1, Jean M Winter2, Claus T Christophersen1, Graeme P Young2, Karen J Humphreys2, Ying Hu2, Silvia W Gratz3, Rosalind B Miller4, David L Topping1, Anthony R Bird1, Michael A Conlon1.
Abstract
Epidemiological studies have identified increased colorectal cancer (CRC) risk with high red meat (HRM) intakes, whereas dietary fibre intake appears to be protective. In the present study, we examined whether a HRM diet increased rectal O(6)-methyl-2-deoxyguanosine (O(6)MeG) adduct levels in healthy human subjects, and whether butyrylated high-amylose maize starch (HAMSB) was protective. A group of twenty-three individuals consumed 300 g/d of cooked red meat without (HRM diet) or with 40 g/d of HAMSB (HRM+HAMSB diet) over 4-week periods separated by a 4-week washout in a randomised cross-over design. Stool and rectal biopsy samples were collected for biochemical, microbial and immunohistochemical analyses at baseline and at the end of each 4-week intervention period. The HRM diet increased rectal O(6)MeG adducts relative to its baseline by 21% (P < 0.01), whereas the addition of HAMSB to the HRM diet prevented this increase. Epithelial proliferation increased with both the HRM (P < 0.001) and HRM + HAMSB (P < 0.05) diets when compared with their respective baseline levels, but was lower following the HRM + HAMSB diet compared with the HRM diet (P < 0.05). Relative to its baseline, the HRM + HAMSB diet increased the excretion of SCFA by over 20% (P < 0.05) and increased the absolute abundances of the Clostridium coccoides group (P < 0.05), the Clostridium leptum group (P < 0.05), Lactobacillus spp. (P < 0.01), Parabacteroides distasonis (P < 0.001) and Ruminococcus bromii (P < 0.05), but lowered Ruminococcus torques (P < 0.05) and the proportions of Ruminococcus gnavus, Ruminococcus torques and Escherichia coli (P < 0.01). HRM consumption could increase the risk of CRC through increased formation of colorectal epithelial O(6)MeG adducts. HAMSB consumption prevented red meat-induced adduct formation, which may be associated with increased stool SCFA levels and/or changes in the microbiota composition.Entities:
Keywords: Butyrate; DNA adducts; Fermentation; Microbiota; Red meat; Resistant starch; SCFA
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26084032 PMCID: PMC4531472 DOI: 10.1017/S0007114515001750
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Nutr ISSN: 0007-1145 Impact factor: 3.718
Fig. 1Overview of the randomised cross-over intervention study design. HRM, high red meat; HAMSB, butyrylated high-amylose maize starch.
Fig. 2Light microscope images (20 × optical zoom) of human rectal crypts showing O6-methyl-2-deoxyguanosine staining intensity from the baseline and after the 4-week intervention phase selected from participant #20. Images showing the sections (a) at the end of the high red meat (HRM) baseline, (b) at the end of the 4-week HRM treatment, (c) at the end of the HRM+butyrylated high-amylose maize starch (HAMSB) baseline and (d) at the end of the 4-week HRM+HAMSB treatment.
Dietary intake of the study participants during each diet period, based on 3 d weighed food records (Mean values with their standard errors; percentages)
| HRM group ( | HRM+HAMSB group ( | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Week 4 | Baseline | Week 4 | ||||||||||
| Mean |
| Mean |
| Increment | Change (%) | Mean |
| Mean |
| Increment | Change (%) |
| |
| Energy (kJ/d) | 9169 | 718 | 9463 | 613 | +294 | 3 | 8578 | 421 | 9250 | 553 | +672 | 7 | 0·98 |
| Protein (g/d) | 101 | 11 | 124* | 5 | +23 | 19 | 88 | 4 | 119** | 7 | +31 | 26 | 0·81 |
| Fat (g/d) | 80 | 10 | 77 | 9 | –3 | 4 | 67 | 4 | 70 | 8 | +3 | 4 | 0·80 |
| Saturated fat (g/d) | 31 | 5 | 34 | 4 | +3 | 9 | 24 | 2 | 30 | 3 | +6 | 20 | 0·75 |
| Carbohydrate (g/d) | 221 | 28 | 222 | 20 | +1 | 1 | 244 | 17 | 256 | 16 | +12 | 5 | 0·36 |
| Sugar (g/d) | 112 | 16 | 121 | 10 | +9 | 7 | 120 | 12 | 129 | 9 | +9 | 7 | 0·78 |
| Starch (g/d) | 108 | 16 | 99 | 17 | –9 | –9 | 122 | 9 | 125 | 9 | +3 | 2 | 0·21 |
| Fibre (g/d) | 24 | 2 | 19** | 2 | –5 | –26 | 28 | 3 | 29 | 3 | +1 | 3 | 0·01 |
| Alcohol (g/d) | 21 | 6 | 22 | 8 | +1 | 5 | 11 | 2 | 7 | 2 | –4 | –57 | 0·52 |
| Total Fe (mg/d) | 13·6 | 0·8 | 15·1 | 0·8 | +1·5 | 10 | 14·4 | 1·2 | 16·4 | 1·5 | +2 | 12 | 0·69 |
| Fe from meat (mg/d) | 3·7 | 0·6 | 7·2*** | 0·9 | +3·5 | 49 | 2·6 | 0·5 | 6·7*** | 0·4 | 4·1 | 61 | 0·56 |
| Fe from non-meat (mg/d) | 9·9 | 0·6 | 7·9 | 0·8 | –2 | –25 | 11·7 | 1·3 | 9·7 | 1·6 | –2·0 | 21 | 0·92 |
HRM, high red meat; HAMSB, butyrylated high-amylose maize starch.
Mean value was significantly different from that at baseline: * P< 0·05, ** P< 0·01, *** P< 0·001 (linear mixed-effects model).
HAMSB supplement contains 88 % total carbohydrate, approximately 20 % dietary fibre, 10 % moisture, < 1 % total fat and < 0·75 % protein.
P value was obtained for treatment difference at week 4 (linear mixed-effects model).
P< 0·05.
Effect of the dietary interventions in the first period on rectal biology (Mean values with their standard errors; percentages)
| HRM group ( | HRM+HAMSB group ( | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Week 4 | Baseline | Week 4 | ||||||||||
| Mean |
| Mean |
| Increment | Change (%) | Mean |
| Mean |
| Increment | Change (%) |
| |
| O6MeG load (staining intensity) | 60·8 | 2·3 | 77·4** | 5·8 | 16·6 | 21·4 | 59·8 | 3·2 | 67·5 | 2·3 | 7·7 | 11·4 | 0·14 |
| PCNA (positive cells/crypt) | 6·2 | 0·3 | 9·9*** | 1·0 | +3·8 | 38 | 6·6 | 0·3 | 8·6* | 0·7 | +2·0 | 23 | 0·05 |
HRM, high red meat; HAMSB, butyrylated high-amylose maize starch; O6MeG, O6-methyl-2-deoxyguanosine; PCNA, proliferating cell nuclear antigen.
Mean value was significantly different from that at baseline: * P< 0·05, ** P< 0·01, *** P< 0·001 (linear mixed-effects model).
P value was obtained for treatment difference at week 4 (linear mixed-effects model).
P< 0·05.
Effect of the dietary interventions in the first period on stool biochemistry (Mean values with their standard errors; percentages)
| HRM group ( | HRM+HAMSB group ( | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Week 4 | Baseline | Week 4 | ||||||||||
| Mean |
| Mean |
| Increment | Change (%) | Mean |
| Mean |
| Increment | Change (%) |
| |
| Faecal output (g/48 h) | 266·4 | 42 | 264·7 | 46·7 | –1·7 | –0·6 | 226·8 | 50·1 | 293·6 | 36 | 66·8 | 22·8 | 0·61 |
| Faecal pH | 7·1 | 0·1 | 7·2 | 0·1 | 0·1 | 1·4 | 7·2 | 0·1 | 7·2 | 0·1 | 0 | 0 | 0·63 |
| SCFA levels (mmol/48 h) | |||||||||||||
| Total | 25·8 | 6·4 | 26·7 | 6·5 | 0·9 | 3·4 | 19·3 | 5·1 | 26·3* | 4·1 | 7 | 26·6 | 0·48 |
| Acetate | 15·2 | 3·9 | 15·7 | 3·7 | 0·5 | 3·2 | 10·3 | 2·6 | 14·4* | 2·3 | 4·1 | 28·5 | 0·61 |
| Propionate | 4·4 | 1·1 | 4·4 | 1·1 | 0 | 0 | 3·7 | 1·1 | 5·2* | 0·9 | 1·5 | 28·8 | 0·27 |
| Butyrate | 4·3 | 1·1 | 4·3 | 1·1 | 0 | 0 | 3·6 | 1·2 | 4·7* | 1 | 1·1 | 23·4 | 0·28 |
| SCFA concentration (μmol/g) | |||||||||||||
| Total | 86·5 | 10·1 | 91·6 | 10·2 | 5·1 | 5·6 | 73·2 | 8·3 | 89·3* | 7·7 | 16·1 | 18 | 0·53 |
| Acetate | 50·8 | 6·2 | 54 | 5·4 | 3·2 | 5·9 | 39·7 | 4·2 | 48·9* | 4·5 | 9·2 | 18·8 | 0·81 |
| Propionate | 14·4 | 2 | 14·9 | 2·2 | 0·5 | 3·4 | 13 | 1·6 | 16·9* | 1·5 | 3·9 | 23·1 | 0·13 |
| Butyrate | 14·1 | 2 | 14·7 | 2·3 | 0·6 | 4·1 | 12·9 | 2·4 | 16·1 | 2·5 | 3·2 | 19·9 | 0·26 |
| BCFA (μmol/g) | 7·2 | 0·8 | 8·2 | 0·9 | 1 | 12·2 | 7·6 | 0·9 | 7·3 | 0·7 | –0·3 | –4·1 | 0·33 |
| Phenol (μg/g) | 1·2 | 0·3 | 0·7 | 0·1 | –0·5 | –71·4 | 1·3 | 0·4 | 1·6 | 1 | 0·3 | 18·8 | 0·63 |
|
| 65·9 | 11·7 | 68·8 | 9·8 | 2·9 | 4·2 | 78·1 | 8·1 | 51·6** | 10·1 | –26·5 | –51·4 | 0·02 |
| NH3 (μmol/g) | 20·4 | 2 | 16·1 | 1·5 | –4·3 | –26·7 | 17 | 1·6 | 15·5 | 1 | –1·5 | –9·7 | 0·93 |
| NOC (ng/ml) | 516 | 112 | 406·5 | 72 | –109·5 | –26·9 | 481·9 | 126·4 | 388·1 | 51·7 | –93·8 | –24·2 | 0·96 |
HRM, high red meat; HAMSB, butyrylated high-amylose maize starch; BCFA, branched-chain fatty acids; NOC, N-nitroso compounds.
Mean value was significantly different from that at baseline: * P< 0·05, ** P< 0·01, *** P< 0·001 (linear mixed-effects model).
P value was obtained for treatment difference at week 4 (linear mixed-effects model).
P< 0·05.
Abundances of species and groups of bacteria (per g of stool and as a percentage of total bacteria)† (Mean values with their standard errors; percentages)
| HRM group ( | HRM+HAMSB group ( | ||||||||||||
| Baseline | Week 4 | Baseline | Week 4 | ||||||||||
| Mean |
| Mean |
| Increment | Change (%) | Mean |
| Mean |
| Increment | Change (%) |
| |
| Per g of stool | |||||||||||||
| Total bacteria | 3·8 × 109 | 7·5 × 108 | 4·7 × 109 | 6·9 × 108 | +0·9 × 109 | 19 | 4·0 × 109 | 6·5 × 108 | 5·4 × 109 | 7·3 × 108 | +1·4 × 109 | 26 | 0·56 |
|
| 5·5 × 108 | 1·2 × 108 | 6·6 × 108 | 8·5 × 107 | +1·1 × 108 | 17 | 5·9 × 108 | 0·9 × 108 | 8·2 × 108* | 8·3 × 107 | +2·2 × 108 | 28 | 0·33 |
|
| 5·3 × 108 | 1·1 × 108 | 7·5 × 108 | 1·5 × 108 | +2·2 × 108 | 29 | 5·1 × 108 | 0·9 × 108 | 9·2 × 108* | 1·6 × 108 | +4·1 × 108 | 45 | 0·54 |
|
| 3·7 × 105 | 1·3 × 105 | 5·1 × 105 | 1·0 × 105 | +1·4 × 105 | 28 | 4·7 × 106 | 3·6 × 106 | 5·8 × 106** | 2·6 × 106 | +1·1 × 106 | 19 | 0·26 |
|
| 1·4 × 107 | 8·1 × 106 | 1·2 × 107 | 6·4 × 106 | –2·0 × 106 | 17 | 9·0 × 106 | 3·3 × 106 | 2·4 × 108*** | 7·9 × 107 | +2·3 × 108 | 96 | 0·0004§§§ |
|
| 9·0 × 106 | 3·1 × 106 | 9·7 × 106 | 4·6 × 106 | +0·7 × 106 | 7 | 1·8 × 107 | 9·5 × 106 | 3·6 × 107* | 1·0 × 107 | +1·8 × 107 | 50 | 0·02 |
|
| 2·2 × 107 | 7·7 × 106 | 2·1 × 107 | 6·4 × 106 | –1·0 × 106 | 5 | 2·2 × 107 | 1·1 × 107 | 0·52 × 107* | 0·25 × 107 | –1·7 × 107 | 323 | 0·03 |
| Percentage of total bacteria | |||||||||||||
|
| 1·08 | 0·82 | 1·5 | 1·04 | +0·4 | 28 | 3·39 | 2·77 | 2·54** | 2·35 | –0·9 | –34 | 0·02 |
|
| 0·27 | 0·16 | 0·2 | 0·11 | –0·1 | –35 | 0·34 | 0·18 | 4·37*** | 1·6 | +4·0 | 92·2 | 0·0001§§§ |
|
| 0·3 | 0·12 | 0·31 | 0·14 | 0 | 0 | 0·45 | 0·14 | 0·22** | 0·1 | –0·2 | –105 | 0·11 |
|
| 1·11 | 0·55 | 0·72 | 0·36 | –0·4 | –54 | 0·98 | 0·58 | 0·15** | 0·09 | –0·8 | –553 | 0·03 |
HRM, high red meat; HAMSB, butyrylated high-amylose maize starch.
Mean value was significantly different from that at baseline: * P< 0·05, ** P< 0·01, *** P< 0·001 (linear mixed-effects model).
As enumerated using quantitative real-time PCR and showing significant changes in response to the dietary treatments.
P value was obtained for treatment difference at week 4 (linear mixed-effects model).
P< 0·05, §§ P< 0·01, §§§ P< 0·001.