| Literature DB >> 32530969 |
Anaísa Martins Marques1, Bárbara Silva Linhares1, Rômulo Dias Novaes2, Mariella Bontempo Freitas1, Mariáurea Matias Sarandy3, Reggiani Vilela Gonçalves1.
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is among the most prevalent diseases in the world, affecting over 420 million people. The disease is marked by a poor metabolic effect of insulin leading to chronic hyperglycaemia, which can result in microvascular complications. It is widely known that postprandial glycaemia is reliant on the total carbohydrate content of a meal. However, the importance of the amount and the source of these carbohydrates remains controversial due to mechanisms other than insulin secretion. Oxidative stress, inflammation, pyruvate production and the quality of the intestinal microbiota, resulting in plasma lipopolysaccharides and short-chain fatty acids production, play an important role in blood sugar control and consequently in type 2 diabetes. Thus, we systematically reviewed the preclinical evidences on the impact of the amount and type of carbohydrate found in different diets and its influence on blood glucose levels in diabetic animals. We used a comprehensive and structured search in biomedical databases Medline (PubMed), Scopus and Web of Science, recovering and analyzing 27 original studies. Results showed that sucrose-rich diets deteriorated diabetic condition in animal models regardless of the total dietary carbohydrate content. On the other hand, fiber, particularly resistant starch, improved blood glucose parameters through direct and indirect mechanisms, such as delayed gastric emptying and improved gut microbiota. All studies used rodents as animal models and male animals were preferred over females. Improvements in T2DM parameters in animal models were more closely related to the type of dietary carbohydrate than to its content on a diet, i. e., resistant starch seems to be the most beneficial source for maintaining normoglycemia. Results show that current literature is at high risk of bias due to neglecting experimental methods.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32530969 PMCID: PMC7292416 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233364
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Flowchart detailing selection of studies included in systematic review.
Based on PRISMA statement “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses”. www.prisma-statement.org.
Fig 2Country of origin of the studies included in this review.
USA = United States of America; JPN = Japan; CHN = China; FRN = France; AUS = Australia; DNK = Denmark.
Qualitative description of main negative‡ and positive* outcomes reported in all studies investigating the relevance of types and amount of carboydrates used in T2DM diets in animal models.
| Study/Country | Dietary strategy | Feed manufacturer | Negative outcomes‡ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parkman | 70,8% CHO: sucrose | Purina 5001, BMI Nutrition, Brentwood, USA | ↓glucose tolerance ↑BW |
| Arimura | 71% CHO 59% CHO high protein | Wako Pure Chemical Industries, JPN | ↑BG in both diets albumin excretion higher in High protein group No difference in BW or C-Peptide |
| Arimura | 71% CHO, 12% Protein 59% CHO, 24% Protein | - | High protein diet ↑HbA1c, ↑plasma insulin and retinal thickness No difference in BG, urinary glucose and BW |
| Bolsinger | HC: 70% CHO MC: 40% CHO LC: 10% CHO HC+High Fiber: 70% CHO | - | Fasting BG higher in HC, followed by MC HC+High Fibre showed same results as LC |
| Bhathena | 54% CHO: Sucrose or starch | Teklad test diet, Madison, USA #40060 | ↑BG in sucrose group compared to starch ↑TC, TG and BW in the sucrose-fed group |
| Velasquez | 54% CHO: Sucrose or starch | Teklad test diet, Madison, USA #40060 | ↑urinary glucose, ↑BG Sucrose-fed: ↑protein excretion, abnormal glomeruli and ↑plasma insulin |
| Kazumi | Chow + 10% glucose or fructose in water | CE-2, Oriental Yeast, Tokyo, JPN | Both glucose and fructose ↑BG Fructose ↑TG |
| Patel | 61% CHO: fructose or cornstarch | - | Fructose: ↑fasting BG and ↓glucose tolerance ↑arterial stiffness |
| Nojima | 47,8% CHO: 30% sucrose or 50% fat | CRF-1 Oriental Yeast, Tokyo, JPN | Sucrose-fed: ↓glucose tolerance and ↑BW Fat-fed: ↑BG |
| Zhuo | 61% CHO: sucrose | - | ↑fasting BG, insulin, TC, TG, GLUT4 ↓GLUT2 in the liver |
| Noonan & Banks, 2000 [ | 35% CHO: sucrose | F2685, Bioserv Frenchtown, USA | ↑fasting BG, BW and plasma insulin |
| Iwama | 30% CHO: sucrose | - | ↑fasting BG, necrosis in pulpal tissue and alveolar bone reabsorption |
| Pascoe | 20% CHO | Allied Feeds, Sydney, Australia | ↑BG, BW, TC |
| Surwit | 25% CHO (High fat): HSHFD, LSHFD | Research Diets, New Brunswick, USA | High fat diet ↑BG, BW and plasma insulin (both HSHFD and LSHFD) |
| Kaneko | 40% CHO 20%CHO | CE-2 Nippon Clea, Tokyo, Japan | 20% and 40% CHO: ↑fasting BG and ↓glucose tolerance 20% CHO: ↑BW and plasma insulin |
| Wang | 10% CHO, 65% Fat | - | 10% CHO: ↑fasting BG, ↑BW, ↓plasma insulin and ↓glucose tolerance |
| Petro | 26% CHO | Research Diets, New Brunswick, USA | ↑fasting BG, BW and plasma insulin |
| Asghar | 12% CHO: sucrose | Research Diets, New Brunswick, USA | ↑fasting BG ↑glucagon ↑plasma insulin |
| Zhou | 80% CHO: resistant starch | - | ↓BG, TC and TG ↑BW |
| Hedemann | 52,95% CHO: Cornstarch, GLU, EMS orresistant starch | Altromin 1321, Brogaarden, DNK | ↓Fasting BG in resistant starch and cornstarch-fed ↓HbA1c in resistance starch-fed All diets ↑TG |
| Shen | 30% CHO: resistant starch | National Starch Food Innovation, Bridgewater, USA | ↓fasting BG, ↑insulin sensitivity, ↑cecal short chain fatty acids and butyrate producing bacteria |
| Marsh et al., 2009 [ | 2% CHO | TestDiet, Richmond, USA | ↓Fasting BG and HbA1c ↑arterial stiffness |
| Sun et al., 2018 [ | Resistant starch: Low dose (10%) Medium dose (15%) High dose (20%) | National Starch and Chemical Company, Shanghai, CHN | ↓fasting BG, TC, TG and BW ↑plasma insulin |
USA = United States of America; BG = blood glucose; TC = total cholesterol; TG = triglycerides; BW = body weight; CHO = carbohydrate; JPN = Japan; AUS, = Australia; HC = high carbohydrate; MC = moderate carbohydrate; LC = low carbohydrate; CHN = China; HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin A1c;— = missing info; HSHFD = high sucrose high fat diet; LSHFD = low sucrose high fat diet; LSLFD = low sucrose low fat diet; HSLFD = high sucrose low fat diet; DNK = Denmark; ♀ = female; GLU = glucidex; EMS = enzimatically modified starch; IHC = immunohistochemestry.
Summary of the impact of different types of diets on main parameters of T2DM in animal models.
| Carbohydrate type | Diet | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Sucrose (n = 8) | VHC (n = 1) | Worsened plasma blood glucose |
| HC (n = 4) | ||
| MC (n = 2) | ||
| LC (n = 1) | ||
| Glu/Fru (n = 3) | HC (n = 3) | Worsened plasma blood glucose |
| MC (n = 0) | ||
| LC (n = 0) | ||
| Corn starch (HGI diet) (n = 2) | HC (n = 2) | No difference (n = 2) |
| MC (n = 0) | ||
| LC (n = 0) | ||
| Resistant Starch (n = 4) | VHC + high fiber (n = 1) HC + high fiber (n = 1) | Improved plasma blood glucose |
| MC + high fiber (n = 1) | ||
| LC + high fiber (n = 1) | ||
| NP (n = 10) | VHC (n = 2) | Worsened plasma blood glucose |
| HC (n = 1) | ||
| HC + high fiber (n = 1) | ||
| MC (n = 0) | ||
| LC (n = 6) |
VHC = very high carbohydrate; HC = high carbohydrate; MC = moderate carbohydrate; LC = low carbohydrate; BG = blood glucose; HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin A1c; Glu/Fru = glucose and fructose; HGI = high glycemic index; NP = not provided.
aAs established by Sainsbury et al. (2018) [14].
Fig 3Risk of bias showing review authors' judgement about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
The following methodological domains based on RoB were evaluated. Consider selection bias: “Was the allocation sequence adequately generated and applied?”, “Were the groups similar at baseline or were they adjusted for confounders in the analysis?”, “Was the allocation to the different groups adequately concealed?”; Consider performance bias: “Were the animals randomly housed during the experiment?”, “Were the caregivers and/or investigators blinded from knowledge regarding which intervention each animal received during the experiment?”; Consider detection bias: “Were animals selected at random for outcome assessment?”, “Was the outcome assessor blinded?”; Considers attrition bias: “Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed?”; Considers reporting bias: “Are reports of the study free of selective outcome reporting?”; Considers other biases: “Was the study apparently free of other problems that could result in high risk of bias?”; The overall study quality indicators: “Was it stated that the experiment was randomized at any level?” and “Was it stated that the experiment was blinded at any level?”. The items in the RoB tool were scored with “yes” (low risk of bias); “no” (high risk of bias); or “unclear” (indicating that the item was not reported, and therefore, the risk of bias was unknown) [12]. The items in the RoB tool were scored with “yes” (low risk of bias); “no” (high risk of bias); or “unclear” (indicating that the item was not reported, and therefore, the risk of bias was unknown) [17].
Fig 4Risk of bias summary showing studies quality assessment at an individual level.
Fig 5Effects of different sources of dietary carbohydrates on T2DM diets in metabolic parameters of animal models.