| Literature DB >> 33267887 |
Zengliang Jiang1,2, Ting-Yu Sun3, Yan He4,5, Wanglong Gou1, Luo-Shi-Yuan Zuo3, Yuanqing Fu1,2, Zelei Miao1, Menglei Shuai1, Fengzhe Xu1, Congmei Xiao1, Yuhui Liang1, Jiali Wang1, Yisong Xu1, Li-Peng Jing3,6, Wenhua Ling2, Hongwei Zhou7,8, Yu-Ming Chen9, Ju-Sheng Zheng10,11,12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the inter-relationship among fruit and vegetable intake, gut microbiota and metabolites, and type 2 diabetes (T2D) in human prospective cohort study. The aim of the present study was to investigate the prospective association of fruit and vegetable intake with human gut microbiota and to examine the relationship between fruit and vegetable-related gut microbiota and their related metabolites with type 2 diabetes (T2D) risk.Entities:
Keywords: Cohort; Fruit and vegetable; Gut microbiota; Metabolites; Type 2 diabetes
Year: 2020 PMID: 33267887 PMCID: PMC7712977 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-020-01842-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med ISSN: 1741-7015 Impact factor: 8.775
Characteristics of the study participants in the Guangzhou Nutrition and Health Study
| Characteristics | Total | Fruit intake | Vegetable intake | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | ||||
| 1879 | 471 | 471 | 467 | 470 | 470 | 470 | 469 | 470 | |||
| Age, years | 58.6 (6.1) | 59.1 (6.5) | 58.8 (6.4) | 58.5 (6.0) | 58.0 (5.5) | 0.005 | 58.8 (6.9) | 59.0 (6.2) | 58.4 (5.7) | 58.3 (5.4) | 0.079 |
| Sex, | 1264 (67.3) | 278 (59.0) | 297 (63.1) | 335 (71.7) | 354 (75.3) | < 0.001 | 291 (61.9) | 305 (64.9) | 332 (70.8) | 336 (71.5) | < 0.001 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 23.2 (3.0) | 23.3 (3.1) | 23.4 (3.2) | 23.1 (2.9) | 23.3 (2.8) | 0.683 | 23.3 (3.1) | 23.4 (3.0) | 23.0 (2.7) | 23.3 (3.1) | 0.420 |
| Total energy intake, kcal/day | 1742 (488) | 1573 (469) | 1687 (455) | 1765 (432) | 1944 (517) | < 0.001 | 1505 (433) | 1677 (430) | 1798 (455) | 1989 (500) | < 0.001 |
| Physical activity, MET hours/day | 40.6 (14.1) | 38.5 (13.4) | 39.6 (13.6) | 41.8 (14.3) | 42.6 (14.6) | < 0.001 | 38.8 (12.7) | 39.5 (13.6) | 41.6 (14.3) | 42.5 (15.2) | < 0.001 |
| Vegetable intake, g/day | 383 (182) | 317 (175) | 352 (149) | 401 (157) | 464 (208) | < 0.001 | 192 (45) | 303 (29) | 414 (37) | 624 (162) | < 0.001 |
| Fruit intake, g/day | 146 (109) | 42 (19) | 95 (16) | 154 (19) | 292 (107) | < 0.001 | 103 (86) | 133 (92) | 154 (97) | 194 (133) | < 0.001 |
| Total fruit and vegetable intake, g/day | 529 (239) | 358 (178) | 448 (152) | 556 (159) | 756 (248) | < 0.001 | 295 (100) | 436 (100) | 568 (105) | 819 (222) | < 0.001 |
| Red and processed meat intake, g/day | 104 (61) | 98 (59) | 101 (56) | 105 (57) | 114 (70) | < 0.001 | 89 (54) | 99 (54) | 112 (64) | 117 (67) | < 0.001 |
| Fish intake, g/day | 50 (51) | 44 (64) | 43 (31) | 54 (60) | 61 (42) | < 0.001 | 37 (56) | 45 (34) | 53 (44) | 67 (62) | < 0.001 |
| Dairy products intake, g/day | 115 (114) | 88 (104) | 107 (108) | 124 (122) | 142 (116) | < 0.001 | 94 (105) | 113 (107) | 125 (115) | 128 (127) | < 0.001 |
| Current alcohol drinker, | 137 (7.3) | 33 (7.0) | 51 (10.8) | 28 (6.0) | 25 (5.3) | 0.065 | 39 (8.3) | 40 (8.5) | 32 (6.8) | 26 (5.5) | 0.063 |
| Current smoker, | 292 (15.5) | 100 (21.2) | 87 (18.5) | 57 (12.2) | 48 (10.2) | < 0.001 | 93 (19.8) | 79 (16.8) | 59 (12.6) | 61 (13.0) | 0.001 |
| Income level, | < 0.001 | 0.472 | |||||||||
| ≤ 500 ¥/months | 28 (1.5) | 11 (2.3) | 4 (0.8) | 8 (1.7) | 5 (1.1) | 6 (1.3) | 8 (1.7) | 9 (1.9) | 5 (1.1) | ||
| 501–1500 ¥/months | 403 (21.4) | 116 (24.6) | 110 (23.4) | 93 (19.9) | 84 (17.9) | 85 (18.1) | 98 (20.9) | 105 (22.4) | 115 (24.4) | ||
| 1501–3000 ¥/months | 1197 (63.7) | 301 (63.9) | 299 (63.5) | 295 (63.2) | 302 (64.2) | 343 (73.0) | 302 (64.2) | 279 (59.5) | 273 (58.1) | ||
| > 3000 ¥/months | 251 (13.4) | 43 (9.1) | 58 (12.3) | 71 (15.2) | 79 (16.8) | 36 (7.6) | 62 (13.2) | 76 (16.2) | 77 (16.4) | ||
| Education, | 0.492 | 0.130 | |||||||||
| Middle school or lower | 510 (27.1) | 139 (29.5) | 120 (25.5) | 128 (27.4) | 123 (26.2) | 132 (28.1) | 137 (29.1) | 111 (23.7) | 130 (27.7) | ||
| High school or professional college | 864 (46.0) | 205 (43.5) | 201 (42.7) | 218 (46.7) | 240 (51.1) | 203 (43.2) | 217 (46.2) | 226 (48.2) | 218 (46.3) | ||
| University | 505 (26.9) | 127 (27.0) | 150 (31.8) | 121 (25.9) | 107 (22.7) | 135 (28.7) | 116 (24.7) | 132 (28.1) | 122 (26.0) | ||
| Glucose, mmol/L | 5.48 (1.32) | 5.51 (1.22) | 5.53 (1.65) | 5.54 (1.38) | 5.34 7(0.87) | 0.089 | 5.49 (1.24) | 5.39 (1.05) | 5.57 (1.64) | 5.47 (1.27) | 0.657 |
| Insulin, μU/mL | 7.30 (4.00) | 7.17 (4.00) | 7.42 (4.00) | 7.41 (4.43) | 7.19 (3.50) | 0.926 | 7.54 (4.36) | 7.41 (4.05) | 7.12 (3.64) | 7.09 (3.87) | 0.072 |
| HbAlc, % | 7.24 (4.22) | 7.13 (4.01) | 7.26 (4.25) | 7.14 (4.03) | 7.42 (4.57) | 0.396 | 7.13 (3.95) | 7.28 (4.64) | 7.37 (4.51) | 7.16 (3.70) | 0.822 |
| HOMA-IR | 1.83 (1.23) | 1.81 (1.25) | 1.86 (1.16) | 1.91 (1.50) | 1.74 (0.91) | 0.626 | 1.89 (1.33) | 1.81 (1.19) | 1.81 (1.10) | 1.81 (1.29) | 0.356 |
| HOMA-β, % | 85.2 (54.2) | 83.8 (54.5) | 87.6 (58.2) | 83.8 (56.1) | 85.7 (47.3) | 0.873 | 88.5 (61.5) | 88.7 (52.8) | 81.3 (50.8) | 81.5 (49.9) | 0.023 |
| Medication use, | 0.057 | 0.930 | |||||||||
| Hypertension | 100 (5.3) | 22 (4.7) | 26 (5.5) | 26 (5.6) | 26 (5.5) | 15 (3.2) | 23 (4.9) | 26 (5.5) | 36 (7.7) | ||
| Hyperlipidemia | 111 (5.9) | 31 (6.6) | 39 (8.3) | 18 (3.9) | 23 (4.9) | 35 (7.4) | 25 (5.3) | 31 (6.6) | 20 (4.3) | ||
| T2D | 58 (3.1) | 21 (4.5) | 19 (4.0) | 6 (1.3) | 12 (2.6) | 19 (4.0) | 12 (2.6) | 17 (3.6) | 10 (2.1) | ||
Data are expressed as mean (SD) for continuous variables and n (%) for categorical variables; Q1 indicates the quartile with the lowest intake; p-trend represents the comparison among quartiles using linear regression
Q1 quartile 1, Q2 quartile 2, Q3 quartile 3, Q4 quartile 4, HbAlc glycated hemoglobin, HOMA-IR homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, HOMA-β homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function, T2D type 2 diabetes
Fig. 1The prospective association of fruit intake with the overall human gut microbiota in the Guangzhou Nutrition and Health Study. a–c Results of different α-diversity matrix. a Observed species. b Chao 1’s diversity parameter. c Shannon’s diversity parameter. Multivariable linear regression was used to estimate the difference in α-diversity comparing extreme quartiles (quartile 4 versus quartile 1) of fruit intake, adjusted for Bristol stool score, sequencing run, sequencing depth, age, sex, BMI, physical activity, education, income, smoking status, alcohol status, drug use (medications for hypertension, hyperlipidemia and T2D), T2D status, total energy intake, dietary intakes of vegetable, red and processed meat, fish and dairy products. d β-diversity: principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) plot based on Bray-Cutis distance at operational taxonomic unit (OTU) level. Permutational ANOVA (PERMANOVA) (999 permutations) was used to identify the variation of β-diversity in human gut microbiota structure comparing extreme quartiles of fruit intake, adjusted for the same covariates. e MaAsLin was used to identify the gut microbial biomarkers for fruit intake comparing extreme quartiles of fruit intake, adjusted for the same covariates. The Benjamini-Hochberg method was used to adjust p values for multiple testing. Value with asterisk is significantly different (*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001)
Fig. 2Relationships among the fruit intake, fruit-gut microbiota index, and type 2 diabetes. a Multivariable linear regression was used to estimate the associations of fruit intake with fruit-microbiota index (FMI) in all participants in the Guangzhou Nutrition and Health Study (GNHS), and the Guangdong Gut Microbiome Project (GGMP). b Multivariable linear regression was used to estimate the associations of fruit intake with FMI in non-T2D participants in the GNHS and GGMP. c Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association of FMI (per standardized unit increase) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) risk in the GNHS and GGMP respectively. The effect estimates from GNHS and GGMP were pooled using random effects meta-analysis for each of the above analyses
Fig. 3Association of the fruit-microbiota index-related fecal metabolites and type 2 diabetes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association of the fruit-microbiota index (FMI)-related fecal metabolites (per standardized unit increase) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) risk in the Guangzhou Nutrition and Health Study (133 cases/1017 participants), adjusted for Bristol stool score, sequencing run, sequencing depth, age, sex, BMI, physical activity, education, income, smoking status, alcohol status, drug use (medications for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and T2D), total energy intake, dietary intakes of vegetable, red and processed meat, fish, and dairy products. “FMI-positive” and “FMI-negative” represented that fecal metabolites had positive and negative association with FMI, respectively. The Benjamini-Hochberg method was used to control the false discovery rate due to multiple testing. Adjusted p value < 0.05 is significantly different