| Literature DB >> 34204572 |
Silvia Turroni1, Elisabetta Petracci2, Valeria Edefonti3, Anna M Giudetti4, Federica D'Amico1,5, Lisa Paganelli6, Giusto Giovannetti7, Laura Del Coco4, Francesco P Fanizzi4, Simone Rampelli1, Debora Guerra8, Claudia Rengucci9, Jenny Bulgarelli10, Marcella Tazzari10, Nicoletta Pellegrini11, Monica Ferraroni3, Oriana Nanni2, Patrizia Serra2.
Abstract
Diet is a major driver of gut microbiota variation and plays a role in metabolic disorders, including metabolic syndrome (MS). Mycorrhized foods from symbiotic agriculture (SA) exhibit improved nutritional properties, but potential benefits have never been investigated in humans. We conducted a pilot interventional study on 60 adults with ≥ 1 risk factors for MS, of whom 33 consumed SA-derived fresh foods and 27 received probiotics over 30 days, with a 15-day follow-up. Stool, urine and blood were collected over time to explore changes in gut microbiota, metabolome, and biochemical, inflammatory and immunologic parameters; previous dietary habits were investigated through a validated food-frequency questionnaire. The baseline microbiota showed alterations typical of metabolic disorders, mainly an increase in Coriobacteriaceae and a decrease in health-associated taxa, which were partly reversed after the SA-based diet. Improvements were observed in metabolome, MS presence (two out of six subjects no longer had MS) or components. Changes were more pronounced with less healthy baseline diets. Probiotics had a marginal, not entirely favorable, effect, although one out of three subjects no longer suffered from MS. These findings suggest that improved dietary patterns can modulate the host microbiota and metabolome, counteracting the risk of developing MS.Entities:
Keywords: adult volunteers; dietary intervention; dietary patterns; gut microbiota; metabolic dysfunction; metabolic syndrome; metabolome; pilot study; symbiotic agriculture
Year: 2021 PMID: 34204572 PMCID: PMC8235411 DOI: 10.3390/nu13062081
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Distribution at baseline of anthropometric, biochemical, and immunological characteristics for all study participants and separately for the dietary intervention groups. Italy, 2018–2019.
| All ( | SA-Group ( | PROB-Group ( |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | [Min–Max] | Median | [Min–Max] | Median | [Min–Max] | ||
| Gender, | 0.176 | ||||||
| Male | 13 | (21.7) | 5 | (15.2) | 8 | (29.6) | |
| Female | 47 | (78.3) | 28 | (84.8) | 19 | (70.4) | |
| Smoking habit, | 0.860 | ||||||
| Never smoker | 26 | (48.1) | 14 | (46.7) | 12 | (50.0) | |
| Ex-smoker | 22 | (40.7) | 12 | (40.0) | 10 | (41.7) | |
| Current smoker | 6 | (11.1) | 4 | (13.3) | 2 | (8.3) | |
| Age at enrollment, years | 46.9 | [18.3–86.4] | 52.7 | [34.6–86.4] | 45.3 | [18.3–64.2] | 0.015 |
| Weight, kg | 70.5 | [44.0–103.0] | 70.0 | [44.0–103.0] | 72.0 | [47–94.5] | 0.953 |
| Height, m | 1.65 | [1.4–1.8] | 1.7 | [1.4–1.8] | 1.7 | [1.5–1.8] | 0.183 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 25.7 | [19.2–36.8] | 26.1 | [19.2–36.8] | 25.3 | [19.8–33.3] | 0.427 |
| Waist circumference, cm | 85.0 | [64.0–113.0] | 85.0 | [67.0–113.0] | 84.0 | [64.0–102.0] | 0.639 |
| Hip circumference, cm | 105.0 | [89.0–123.0] | 105.0 | [89.0–123] | 104.0 | [90.0–116.0] | 0.312 |
| WHR | 0.8 | [0.7–1.0] | 0.8 | [0.7–1.0] | 0.8 | [0.7–1.0] | 0.783 |
| Abdomen circumference, cm | 98.5 | [69.0–120] | 98.0 | [78.0–120.0] | 99.0 | [69.0–111.0] | 0.582 |
| Glucose, mg/dL | 82.5 | [66.0–212.0] | 83.0 | [66.0–212.0] | 82.0 | [72.0–103.0] | 0.271 |
| Cholesterol, mg/dL 1 | 193.0 | [136.0–269.0] | 190.0 | [136.0–269.0] | 195.0 | [139.0–269.0] | 0.345 |
| HDL, mg/dL 1 | 59.0 | [31.0–94.0] | 65.0 | [31.0–94.0] | 55.0 | [34.0–86.0] | 0.061 |
| LDL, mg/dL 1 | 113.0 | [55.0–171.0] | 106.0 | [67.0–171.0] | 119.0 | [55.0–167.0] | 0.064 |
| Triglycerides, mg/dL 1 | 90.0 | [43.0–365.0] | 91.5 | [43.0–365.0] | 90.0 | [44.0–243.0] | 0.879 |
| Cortisol, µg/L 1 | 125.0 | [61.0–268.0] | 124.5 | [68.0–206.0] | 129.0 | [61.0–268.0] | 0.744 |
| Insulin, mU/L 1 | 9.2 | [3.0–93.3] | 8.9 | [3.0–28.2] | 10.1 | [5.1–93.3] | 0.169 |
| Systolic BP, mmHg 1 | 120.0 | [97.0–155.0] | 120.0 | [100.0–155.0] | 115.0 | [97.0–150.0] | 0.072 |
| Diastolic BP, mmHg 1 | 70.0 | [55.0–90.0] | 70.0 | [60.0–90.0] | 70.0 | [55.0–90.0] | 1.000 |
| MS, | 0.488 | ||||||
| No | 50 | (84.7) | 26 | (81.2) | 24 | (88.9) | |
| Yes | 9 | (15.3) | 6 | (18.8) | 3 | (11.1) | |
| INF-γ 1 | 0 | [0.0–7.5] | 0 | [0–2.8] | 0 | [0–7.5] | 0.646 |
| IL-6 1 | 1.3 | [0.0–254.4] | 1.3 | [0–55.5] | 1.6 | [0–254.4] | 0.613 |
| IL-10 1 | 0.3 | [0.0–15.0] | 0 | [0–15.0] | 0.6 | [0–4.5] | 0.087 |
| IL-17A 1 | 0 | [0.0–18.8] | 0 | [0–2.6] | 0.8 | [0–18.8] | 0.004 |
| TNFα 1 | 0.2 | [0.0–67.9] | 0 | [0–67.9] | 0.3 | [0–11.9] | 0.419 |
| IMI categories, | 0.265 | ||||||
| 0–3 | 24 | (40.7) | 16 | (50.0) | 8 | (29.6) | |
| 4–5 | 23 | (39.0) | 10 | (31.3) | 13 | (48.2) | |
| 6–8 | 12 | (20.3) | 6 | (18.7) | 6 | (22.2) | |
BMI: body mass index; WHR: waist-to-hip ratio; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; LDL: low-density lipoprotein; BP: blood pressure; MS: metabolic syndrome; IMI: Italian Mediterranean Index. 1 With the exception of smoking habit, missing values were present only for one patient.
Figure 1Study timeline. Italy, 2018–2019. The time points are grouped as follows: (i) T-15 and T-7: 15 and 7 days before the intervention (Before intervention); (ii) T0: start of the intervention; T7, T15 and T30: 7, 15 and 30 days from the beginning of the intervention (Intervention); and (iii) TF7 and TF15: 7 and 15 days after the end of the intervention (Follow-up). The validated semi-quantitative European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) was administered to collect information on consumption frequency of food items.
Distribution at baseline of anthropometric, biochemical, and immunological characteristics by Italian Mediterranean Index tertiles (n = 59). Italy, 2018–2019.
| Low Adherence | Medium Adherence | High Adherence |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | [Min–Max] | Median | [Min–Max] | Median | [Min–Max] | ||
| Gender, | 0.848 | ||||||
| Male | 5 | (20.8) | 6 | (26.1) | 2 | (16.7) | |
| Female | 19 | (79.0) | 17 | (73.9) | 10 | (83.3) | |
| Smoking habit, | 0.797 | ||||||
| Never smoker | 11 | (50.0) | 10 | (47.6) | 5 | (45.5) | |
| Ex-smoker | 8 | (36.4) | 10 | (47.6) | 4 | (36.4) | |
| Current smoker | 3 | (13.6) | 1 | (4.8) | 2 | (18.2) | |
| Age at enrollment, years | 46.2 | [18.3–86.4] | 53.7 | [35.4–84.8] | 46.1 | [40.5–55.0] | 0.389 |
| Weight, kg | 73.5 | [47.0–103.0] | 67.0 | [44.0–94.5] | 66.5 | [56.0–84.5] | 0.431 |
| Height, m | 1.7 | [1.43–1.8] | 1.7 | [1.4–1.8] | 1.7 | [1.58–1.8] | 0.949 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 26.5 | [19.2–36.8] | 25.4 | [20.0–31.9] | 24.7 | [20.3–31.8] | 0.380 |
| Waist circumference, cm | 85.5 | [64.0–113.0] | 83.0 | [70.0–105.0] | 84.0 | [68.0–101.0] | 0.543 |
| Hip circumference, cm | 107.0 | [90.0–123.0] | 104.0 | [89.0–115.0] | 101.5 | [90.0–122.0] | 0.391 |
| WHR | 0.8 | [0.7–1.0] | 0.8 | [0.7–1.0] | 0.8 | [0.7–1.0] | 0.952 |
| Abdomen circumference, cm | 99.5 | [69.0–120.0] | 98.0 | [81.0–110.0] | 97.0 | [75–115.0] | 0.501 |
| Glucose, mg/dL | 86.5 | [72.0–212.0] | 82.0 | [72.0–123.0] | 79.0 | [66.0–88.0] | 0.051 |
| Cholesterol, mg/dL 1 | 193.5 | [136.0–269] | 193.5 | [139.0–228.0] | 185.0 | [145–269.0] | 0.486 |
| HDL, mg/dL 1 | 55.5 | [31.0–94.0] | 58.0 | [34.0–79.0] | 63.0 | [41.0–82.0] | 0.176 |
| LDL, mg/dL 1 | 117.0 | [67.0–171.0] | 111.0 | [67.0–157.0] | 110.5 | [55.0–167.0] | 0.535 |
| Triglycerides, mg/dL 1 | 96.0 | [44.0–365.0] | 90.0 | [50.0–267.0] | 90.5 | [43.0–164.0] | 0.740 |
| Cortisol, µg/L 1 | 119.5 | [61.0–268.0] | 141.5 | [85.0–226.0] | 121.0 | [68.0–254.0] | 0.471 |
| Insulin, mU/L 1 | 8.9 | [3.0–93.3] | 10.0 | [5.4–35.0] | 8.1 | [3.2–27.7] | 0.334 |
| Systolic BP, mmHg 1 | 120.0 | [100.0–140.0] | 118.0 | [97.0–155.0] | 120.0 | [107.0–130.0] | 0.984 |
| Diastolic BP, mmHg 1 | 72.5 | [60.0–90] | 70.0 | [55.0–90.0] | 70.0 | [60.0–90.0] | 0.514 |
| MS, | 0.719 | ||||||
| No | 19 | (79.2) | 19 | (86.4) | 11 | (91.7) | |
| Yes | 5 | (20.8) | 3 | (13.6) | 1 | (8.3) | |
| INF-γ 1 | 0 | [0–2.3] | 0 | [0–2.8] | 0.2 | [0–7.5] | 0.151 |
| IL-6 1 | 1.0 | [0–55.5] | 1.6 | [0–5.7] | 1.3 | [0–254.4] | 0.489 |
| IL-10 1 | 0.1 | [0–15.0] | 0.4 | [0–1.9] | 0.7 | [0–4.5] | 0.520 |
| IL-17A 1 | 0 | [0–3.6] | 0 | [0–3.3] | 0.5 | [0–18.8] | 0.411 |
| TNFα 1 | 0 | [0–11.0] | 0.345 | [0–5.3] | 0.6 | [0–11.9] | |
BMI: body mass index; WHR: waist-to-hip ratio; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; LDL: low-density lipoprotein; BP: blood pressure; MS: metabolic syndrome. 1 With the exception of smoking habit and MS, missing values were present only for one patient. 2 No subjects in our study sample reached the maximum IMI score of 11.
Factor loading matrix 1 and explained variances for the three major dietary patterns identified by principal component factor analysis on baseline nutrient information. Italy, 2018–2019.
| Nutrient | Dietary Pattern | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Products | Vitamins and Fiber | Regional | |
| Animal protein |
| - | - |
| Vegetable protein | 0.34 | 0.48 |
|
| Cholesterol |
| 0.15 | 0.13 |
| Saturated fatty acids |
| 0.43 | 0.13 |
| Monounsaturated fatty acids | 0.48 |
| 0.42 |
| Linoleic acid |
| 0.40 | 0.44 |
| Linolenic acid | 0.49 | 0.61 | 0.40 |
| Other polyunsaturated fatty acids | - | - |
|
| Soluble carbohydrates | 0.43 |
| 0.29 |
| Starch | 0.46 | 0.19 |
|
| Sodium |
| 0.30 | 0.27 |
| Calcium |
| 0.54 | - |
| Potassium | 0.61 |
| 0.25 |
| Phosphorus |
| 0.44 | 0.31 |
| Iron | 0.54 | 0.57 | 0.57 |
| Zinc |
| 0.29 | 0.42 |
| Thiamin (vitamin B1) |
| 0.44 | 0.41 |
| Riboflavin (vitamin B2) |
| 0.43 | - |
| Vitamin B6 |
| 0.46 | 0.32 |
| Total folate | 0.33 |
| 0.44 |
| Niacin |
| 0.29 | 0.27 |
| Vitamin C | 0.21 |
| - |
| Retinol |
| - | 0.17 |
| Beta-carotene | - |
| 0.24 |
| Vitamin D |
| 0.10 | - |
| Vitamin E | 0.28 |
| 0.47 |
| Total fiber | 0.22 |
| 0.47 |
|
| 37.99 | 27.28 | 15.09 |
|
| 37.99 | 65.27 | 80.36 |
1 Estimates from a principal component factor analysis on 27 nutrients. For each factor, loadings greater or equal to 0.63 indicated important or “dominant nutrients” in the current paper and were shown in bold typeface; loadings smaller than 0.1 were suppressed.
Description of the dietary patterns identified at baseline from cluster analysis 1: cluster size (i.e., number of subjects included in each cluster) and cluster centers. Italy, 2018–2019.
| Cluster Name 2 | Cluster Size | Cluster Center (Medoid) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Products | Vitamins and Fiber | Regional | ||
| C1-High consumers | 11 | 0.11 | 0.24 |
|
| C2-Low consumers | 19 | −0.72 | −0.59 | −0.41 |
| C3-Omnivorous with | 18 |
| −0.30 | −0.30 |
| C4-Omnivorous with | 11 | −0.69 |
| −0.70 |
1 Estimates from the Partitioning Around Medoids clustering algorithm carried out on the factor scores derived from a previous Principal Component Factor Analysis on nutrient information at baseline. The optimal number of clusters was equal to four, as derived from a combination of criteria, including results of the average silhouette method, parsimony and cluster interpretation. 2 Cluster names were based on the position of center coordinate within the range of the factor scores used as input data. Specifically, coordinates exceeding the third quartile (in absolute value) indicated extreme dietary behavior. Quartiles (Q) of the factor scores at baseline were as follows: “Animal products” pattern: Q1: −0.69; Q2: −0.24; Q3: 0.48; “Vitamins and fiber” pattern: Q1: −0.53; Q2: −0.19; Q3: 0.37; “Regional”pattern: Q1: −0.60; Q2: −0.30; Q3: 0.32. 3 For each cluster, center coordinates greater than or equal to the third quartile score are shown in bold typeface.
Figure 2The gut microbiota of study subjects at risk for metabolic syndrome segregated from those of healthy Italian controls, matched by microbiota-associated confounding factors (i.e., age and gender). (A) Boxplots showing the distribution of alpha diversity, according to the inverse Simpson index, in study subjects (dark red) compared to healthy Italian controls (grey). A significantly reduced diversity was observed in the former group (p = 0.01, Wilcoxon test). (B) PCoA plot of beta diversity, based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity between the genus-level microbial profiles. A significant separation between study subjects and healthy Italian controls was found (p = 0.001, permutation test with pseudo-F ratio). Samples are identified with colored dots as in (A). Ellipses include 95% confidence area based on the standard error of the weighted average of sample coordinates (dark red, subjects at risk for metabolic syndrome; grey, healthy controls). (C) Boxplots showing the relative abundance distribution of differentially represented genera between study subjects and healthy Italian controls (p ≤ 0.05, Wilcoxon test).
Figure 3Impact on the gut microbiota of a diet with fresh foods from organic symbiotic agriculture versus probiotic supplementation. Boxplots showing the relative abundance distribution of differentially represented taxa over time, in subjects at risk for metabolic syndrome consuming fresh foods from organic symbiotic agriculture (SA-group) (A), or receiving probiotic supplementation (PROB-group) (B). The gut microbiota was profiled at baseline (T0), after 7 (T7), 15 (T15) and 30 (T30) days of intervention, and at follow-up, 7 (TF7) and 15 (TF15) days after the end of the intervention. *, p ≤ 0.05; #, 0.05 < p ≤ 0.1; Wilcoxon test.