| Literature DB >> 34020448 |
Kari K Koponen1,2, Aaro Salosensaari3,4, Matti O Ruuskanen2,5, Aki S Havulinna2,6, Satu Männistö2, Pekka Jousilahti2, Joonatan Palmu2,3,5, Rodolfo Salido7, Karenina Sanders7, Caitriona Brennan7, Gregory C Humphrey7, Jon G Sanders7,8, Guillaume Meric9,10, Susan Cheng11,12,13, Michael Inouye10,14, Mohit Jain15, Teemu J Niiranen2,3,5, Liisa M Valsta2, Rob Knight7, Veikko V Salomaa2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diet has a major influence on the human gut microbiota, which has been linked to health and disease. However, epidemiological studies on associations of a healthy diet with the microbiota utilizing a whole-diet approach are still scant.Entities:
Keywords: cross-sectional study; dietary score; epidemiology; healthy diet; metagenomics; microbiology; microbiota; nutrition
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34020448 PMCID: PMC8326043 DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/nqab077
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Clin Nutr ISSN: 0002-9165 Impact factor: 8.472
Summary of dietary components, their food items, and score ranges
| Components | Score range[ | Constituting food items |
|---|---|---|
| Breads | 1–120 | Rye and crisp bread[ |
| Graham and multi-grain bread[ | ||
| Vegetables | 1.5–150 | Fresh vegetables and root vegetables[ |
| Cooked vegetables and legumes[ | ||
| Vegetable dishes[ | ||
| Fruits | 0.5–60 | Fruits[ |
| Berries | 0.5–45 | Fresh and frozen berries[ |
| Juices | 0.5–45 | Fruit and berry juices[ |
| Fish | 0.5–45 | Fish, fish products, and fish dishes[ |
| Poultry | 0.5–45 | Poultry, poultry products, and poultry dishes[ |
| Low-fat cheeses | 0.5–60 | Low-fat cheeses[ |
| Dressings and oils | 0.5–45 | Salad dressings and oils[ |
| Nuts and seeds | 1–90 | Nuts[ |
| Seeds[ | ||
| Red and processed meat products | 2–150 | Meat dishes[ |
| Sausages[ | ||
| Cold cuts[ | ||
| Charcuterie[ |
Each component's possible range is displayed as times per month.
2The scores for individual food items range from 0.5 to 60 points.
3The scores for individual food items range from 0.5 to 45 points.
4The scores for individual food items range from 0.5 to 30 points.
Descriptive characteristics of the study sample
| Men ( | Women ( | All ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Mean ± SD | Median (IQR) | Mean ± SD | Median (IQR) | Mean ± SD | Median (IQR) |
| Age, y | 49 ± 12.8 | — | 47 ± 12.8 | — | 48 ± 12.8 | — |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 27.3 ± 4.1 | — | 26.5 ± 5.0 | — | 26.9 ± 4.6 | — |
| Medication users, | 680 (29.4%) | — | 1151 (43.9%) | — | 1831 (37.1%) | — |
| Current smokers, | 659 (28.5%) | — | 510 (19.5%) | — | 1169 (23.7%) | — |
| HFC score, 1/mo | 219.2 ± 91.1 | 203.6 (116.9) | 277.2 ± 105.6 | 266.3 (151.4) | 250.0 ± 103.2 | 234.9 (144.1) |
| Breads, 1/mo | 64.1 ± 29.6 | 64.3 (38.5) | 65.5 ± 30.4 | 64.3 (38.5) | 64.8 ± 30.0 | 64.3 (38.5) |
| Vegetables, 1/mo | 33.3 ± 29.8 | 24.5 (36.7) | 48.5 ± 35.2 | 38.7 (48.6) | 41.4 ± 33.7 | 31.1 (50.1) |
| Fruits, 1/mo | 20.2 ± 20.1 | 8.6 (17.2) | 30.3 ± 23.0 | 21.5 (51.4) | 25.6 ± 22.3 | 21.5 (51.4) |
| Berries, 1/mo | 7.9 ± 11.0 | 4.3 (7.1) | 11.8 ± 13.4 | 8.6 (20.0) | 10.0 ± 12.5 | 4.3 (7.1) |
| Fruit and berry juices, 1/mo | 15.7 ± 15.5 | 8.6 (20.0) | 16.4 ± 15.8 | 8.6 (20.0) | 16.1 ± 15.7 | 8.6 (20.0) |
| Fish, 1/mo | 5.7 ± 5.6 | 4.3 (7.1) | 5.5 ± 4.8 | 4.3 (7.1) | 5.6 ± 5.2 | 4.3 (7.1) |
| Red and processed meat products, 1/mo | 40.0 ± 23.3 | 35.9 (32.1) | 31.4 ± 22.0 | 27.8 (28.6) | 35.4 ± 23.0 | 32.1 (31.6) |
| Poultry, 1/mo | 4.6 ± 4.5 | 4.3 (7.1) | 5.4 ± 4.8 | 4.3 (7.1) | 5.0 ± 4.7, | 4.3 (7.1) |
| Low-fat cheeses, 1/mo | 13.6 ± 19.2 | 4.3 (21.0) | 21.0 ± 23.0 | 8.6 (20.0) | 17.6 ± 21.6 | 8.6 (20.0) |
| Dressings and oils, 1/mo | 6.6 ± 10.0 | 1.5 (8.1) | 7.5 ± 10.8 | 1.5 (8.1) | 7.1 ± 10.5 | 1.5 (8.1) |
| Nuts and seeds, 1/mo | 2.4 ± 6.0 | 1.0 (0) | 3.3 ± 7.7 | 1.0 (1.0) | 2.8 ± 7.0 | 1.0 (1.0) |
Medication users are individuals who used potentially microbiota-altering medication (listed in Supplemental Methods) within 3 months prior to the examination. Current smokers are individuals who smoked within 6 months prior to the examination. Values are means ± 1 SD (excluding medication users and current smokers), followed by the median, with the IQR in parenthesis for nutritional variables. Units for the dietary components are the respective consumption frequencies for each item as times per month. The HFC score was calculated by first transforming original FPQ responses to times-per-month values and then summing these values for food items that are regarded as being part of a healthy diet. The times-per-month values for red and processed meat products were inverted prior to adding them to the HFC score, to account for their negative roles in the diet. Abbreviations: FPQ, food propensity questionnaire; HFC, healthy food choices.
FIGURE 1Alpha and beta diversity results (n = 4930). The HFC score is a summary variable that consists of the summed monthly consumption frequencies of the individual food components listed beneath it. Red and processed meat products have inverse grading compared to those of other components to account for their negative impact on diet quality; thus, a higher score implies low use of such products. Combined fiber sources score is a summary variable that includes only food components that are sources of dietary fiber. Alpha diversity (Shannon index; mean, 3.44; SD, 0.41) on the left was analyzed using linear regression models and was standardized per SD. The shading of the boxes on the left correspond to the strength of the association. PERMANOVA results (R2) for beta diversity (Bray-Curtis dissimilarity) are on the right. Both analyses were adjusted for age, sex, BMI, and use of potentially microbiota-altering medication within 3 months prior to study. *Statistically significant results (P value < 0.05), with the P value labeled on the right. Abbreviations: HFC, healthy food choices; PERMANOVA, permutational multivariate analysis of variance.
Results of linear regression models predicting Shannon alpha diversity measure
| Variable | β/SD | SE |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| HFC score | 0.044 | 6.18 × 10−5 | 2.21 × 10−3 |
| Combined fiber sources score | 0.049 | 8.75 × 10−5 | 5.31 × 10−4 |
| Fiber-rich breads | 0.043 | 1.97 × 10−4 | 2.70 × 10−3 |
| Poultry | 0.036 | 1.26 × 10−3 | 1.28 × 10−2 |
| Fruits | 0.035 | 2.73 × 10−4 | 1.44 × 10−2 |
| Low-fat cheeses | 0.035 | 2.75 × 10−4 | 1.51 × 10−2 |
| Berries | 0.033 | 4.98 × 10−4 | 2.12 × 10−2 |
| Vegetables | 0.026 | 1.80 × 10−4 | 6.38 × 10−2 |
| Fruit and berry juices | 0.0025 | 3.72 × 10−4 | 8.59 × 10−1 |
| Nuts and seeds | 0.020 | 8.39 × 10−4 | 1.64 × 10−1 |
| Fish | 0.010 | 1.15 × 10−3 | 4.65 × 10−1 |
| Red and processed meat products (low use) | −0.0051 | 1.50 × 10−4 | 7.21 × 10−1 |
| Dressings and oils | −0.0062 | 5.57 × 10−4 | 6.66 × 10−1 |
Each row represents the results of one regression model, sorted by standardized effect strength with the HFC score on the first row and combined fiber sources score on the second row. The scores’ individual components are listed starting from row three. Covariates in each model include age, sex, BMI, smoking, and potentially microbiota-altering medication. Interaction effects were nonsignificant and thus were omitted from the analyses. Abbreviations: HFC, healthy food choices.
FIGURE 2Distance-based redundancy analysis results for the HFC score components, explaining the variance in beta diversity results (n = 4930). The analysis explains variation in the distances between Bray-Curtis dissimilarity scores of the samples by constraining their ordination with a set of explanatory variables (unlike in a principal coordinate analysis, where the ordination is unconstrained). Directions of the vectors display directions of associations for the covariates and components of the HFC score with Bray-Curtis dissimilarity scores on the first 2 axes of the ordination. The lengths of the vectors correspond to the strength of correlation. The further away an item is from the origin, the greater its contribution to variance. The closer 2 items are to each other, the more similar their effect on variance. The amount of constrained variance (i.e., the percentage of variance explainable by the current set of explanatory variables) explained by axes RDA1 and RDA2 is displayed in parenthesis on the respective axis next to the axis label. Abbreviations: HFC, healthy food choices; RDA, redundancy analysis.
FIGURE 3Principal coordinate analysis plot depicting the ordination of Bray-Curtis dissimilarity scores of the individuals in the first and last deciles (n = 986) of the HFC score on the first 2 principal coordinates. The closer 2 points are, the more similar their microbiotas are. Abbreviations: HFC, healthy food choices; PCo, principal coordinate analysis.
FIGURE 4MaAsLin analysis results for the HFC score, combined fiber sources score, and their constituting elements, filtered by core genera and sorted by effect size (n = 4930). Microbial abundances were arcsine square root–transformed, and the analyses were adjusted for age, sex, BMI, and use of potentially microbiota-altering medication within 3 months prior to study. Each square represents the effect strength per SD (β/SD) of a linear regression model, run between the respective dietary component or score and bacterial genus. Significance threshold was a false discovery rate–corrected Q-value < 0.05. A dark gray square indicates a nonsignificant result. Abbreviations: HFC, healthy food choices; MaAsLin, multivariate association with linear models.
FIGURE 5Positive associations of functional pathways in the gut microbiota with the HFC score (n = 4930). The layers from darker to lighter are biological categories (very dark gray), biological processes (dark gray), pathways (medium gray), and modules (light gray). Node size is determined by the average value of all the estimates of statistically significant (P value < 0.05) KO groups assignable to that node. Estimates were calculated with linear regression models, with each KO group being the dependent variable. The HFC score, along with age, sex, BMI, smoking, and use of potentially microbiota-altering medication within 3 months prior to the study, were used as independent variables. For clarity, node labels for only the 3 highest layers were included. Displayed labels were filtered to only include nodes which had a size greater than 150. Abbreviations: FoxO, Forkhead box protein class O; HFC, healthy food choices, KO, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes orthology; PI3K-Akt, Phosphoinositide 3-kinase - Protein kinase B signalling pathway.
FIGURE 6Inverse associations of functional pathways in the gut microbiota with the HFC score (n = 4930). Abbreviations: HFC, healthy food choices.