| Literature DB >> 35565725 |
Abbi R Hernandez1,2,3, Keri M Kemp4, Sara N Burke5, Thomas W Buford1,2,3,6,7, Christy S Carter1,2,3,6.
Abstract
Both ketogenic diets (KD) and time-restricted feeding (TRF) regimens have the ability to influence several parameters of physical health, including gut microbiome composition and circulating cytokine concentration. Moreover, both of these dietary interventions prevent common impairments associated with the aging process. However, significantly altering macronutrient intake, which is required for a KD, may be unappealing to individuals and decrease compliance to dietary treatments. In contrast to a KD, TRF allows individuals to continue eating the foods they are used to, and only requires a change in the time of day at which they eat. Therefore, we investigated both a KD and a diet with a more Western-like macronutrient profile in the context of TRF, and compared both diets to animals allowed access to standard chow ad libitum in young adult and aged rats. While limited effects on cytokine levels were observed, both methods of microbiome analysis (16S sequencing and metagenomics) indicate that TRF and KDs significantly altered the gut microbiome in aged rats. These changes were largely dependent on changes to feeding paradigm (TRF vs. ad libitum) alone regardless of macronutrient content for many gut microbiota, but there were also macronutrient-specific changes. Specifically, functional analysis indicates significant differences in several pathways, including those involved in the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle, carbohydrate metabolism and neurodegenerative disease. These data indicate that age- and disease-related gut dysbiosis may be ameliorated through the use of TRF with both standard diets and KDs.Entities:
Keywords: 16S; cytokine; gut; intermittent fasting; ketogenic diet
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35565725 PMCID: PMC9105022 DOI: 10.3390/nu14091758
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Circulating biomarkers following dietary intervention. (A) The glucose ketone index (GKI) was significantly lower in Time restricted fed (TRF) Keto-fed rats than in either ad libitum or TRF Control-fed rats. (B–F) Levels of circulating cytokines remained largely unaffected by either age or diet, with the exception of TNFα, for which a significant effect of diet (p = 0.04) was found. Abbreviations: TNFα: tumor necrosis factor alpha; IFN-γ: interferon gamma; IL4/6/10: interleukin 4/6/10. All values represent the mean ± the standard error of the mean (SEM), * indicates p < 0.05.
Two-way ANOVAs with the between-subjects factors of age and diet group, with post hoc assessment of age within each diet group on five distinct alpha diversity measures.
| 3 Diet Comparison x Age | Feeding Paradigm x Age | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F (df, Error) |
| t | DF |
| F (df, Error) |
| t | DF |
| |||||
|
|
| F (2, 27) = 1.339 | 0.2791 |
| 0.461 | 27 | 0.9566 |
| F (1, 29) = 2.432 | 0.1297 |
| 1.448 | 29 | 0.2917 |
|
| F (1, 27) = 1.211 | 0.2808 |
| 0.4362 | 27 | 0.9628 |
| F (1, 29) = 2.512 | 0.1238 |
| 3.185 | 29 | 0.0069 | |
|
| F (2, 27) = 5.507 | 0.0099 |
| 1.836 | 27 | 0.2147 |
| F (1, 29) = 11.46 | 0.0021 | |||||
|
|
| F (2, 27) = 2.385 | 0.1112 |
| 1.413 | 27 | 0.426 |
| F (1, 29) = 4.531 | 0.0419 |
| 2.378 | 29 | 0.0479 |
|
| F (1, 27) = 8.091 | 0.0084 |
| 3.909 | 27 | 0.0017 |
| F (1, 29) = 11.44 | 0.0021 |
| 4.673 | 29 | 0.0001 | |
|
| F (2, 27) = 14.15 | <0.0001 |
| 5.134 | 27 | <0.0001 |
| F (1, 29) = 26.28 | <0.0001 | |||||
|
|
| F (2, 27) = 0.2374 | 0.7903 |
| 1.469 | 27 | 0.393 |
| F (1, 29) = 0.3164 | 0.5781 |
| 1.374 | 29 | 0.3276 |
|
| F (1, 27) = 1.989 | 0.1699 |
| 1.367 | 27 | 0.4544 |
| F (1, 29) = 2.327 | 0.138 |
| 1.84 | 29 | 0.1462 | |
|
| F (2, 27) = 3.718 | 0.0375 |
| 2.725 | 27 | 0.0331 |
| F (1, 29) = 5.265 | 0.0292 | |||||
|
|
| F (2, 27) = 0.4912 | 0.6173 |
| 2.065 | 27 | 0.1388 |
| F (1, 29) = 0.009902 | 0.9214 |
| 2.089 | 29 | 0.089 |
|
| F (1, 27) = 1.947 | 0.1743 |
| 1.432 | 27 | 0.4148 |
| F (1, 29) = 1.460 | 0.2367 |
| 1.568 | 29 | 0.239 | |
|
| F (2, 27) = 5.718 | 0.0085 |
| 3.356 | 27 | 0.0071 |
| F (1, 29) = 6.425 | 0.0169 | |||||
|
|
| F (2, 27) = 0.1713 | 0.8435 |
| 0.6629 | 27 | 0.8845 |
| F (1, 29) = 0.3796 | 0.5426 |
| 1.512 | 29 | 0.2625 |
|
| F (1, 27) = 2.187 | 0.1508 |
| 2.493 | 27 | 0.0563 |
| F (1, 29) = 1.495 | 0.2313 |
| 2.022 | 29 | 0.1023 | |
|
| F (2, 27) = 3.253 | 0.0543 |
| 1.782 | 27 | 0.2363 |
| F (1, 29) = 6.365 | 0.0174 | |||||
Figure 2Alpha diversity by (A) diet group and (B) feeding paradigm (TRF vs. ad libitum regardless of macronutrient ratio) suggests that feeding paradigm more strongly influences microbial diversity than altered macronutrient ratio alone. All values represent the mean ± the standard error of the mean (SEM), * indicates p < 0.05.
Figure 3Beta diversity across diet and age groups. All three methods utilized, which includes the (A) Bray–Curtis Dissimilarity, (B) unweighted Unifrac Dissimilarity and (C) weighted Unifrac Dissimilarity demonstrated significantly different beta diversities based on diet and feeding paradigm (TRF versus ad libitum) groups. PC: Principle Component.
Figure 4Diet and feeding paradigm influence on gut microbe abundance at the phylum taxonomic level. Relative abundance at the phylum taxonomic level (A) by diet group and (B) feeding paradigm (TRF versus ad libitum). Significantly different phyla are shown by (C) diet group and (D) feeding paradigm. All values in C–D represent the mean ± the standard error of the mean (SEM).
Figure 5Diet and feeding paradigm (TRF versus ad libitum) influences on gut microbe abundance at the genus taxonomic level. (A) Heat map of genera relative abundance by diet group. Analysis of composition of microbiomes (ANCOM) differential abundance volcano plots at the bacterial genus level for (B) TRF Control and (C) TRF Keto relative to ad libitum-fed rats. ANCOM analysis utilized the centered log ratio (CLR)-transformed ASV count table. Only significantly different genera are colored, non-significant taxa are displayed in black.
Figure 6Cluster of Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG)-based annotation analysis by diet group. (A) Level 1 KEGG classification relative abundance across diet groups. (B–D) Within each level 2 subgroup, level 3 groupings were investigated and significantly affected level 3 classifications are displayed here.