| Literature DB >> 35565740 |
Francesco Maria Calabrese1, Vittoria Disciglio2, Isabella Franco2, Paolo Sorino2, Caterina Bonfiglio2, Antonella Bianco2, Angelo Campanella2, Tamara Lippolis2, Pasqua Letizia Pesole2, Maurizio Polignano2, Mirco Vacca1, Giusy Rita Caponio2, Gianluigi Giannelli2, Maria De Angelis1, Alberto Ruben Osella2.
Abstract
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common liver disease, and its prevalence worldwide is increasing. Several studies support the pathophysiological role of the gut-liver axis, where specific signal pathways are finely tuned by intestinal microbiota both in the onset and progression of NAFLD. In the present study, we investigate the impact of different lifestyle interventions on the gut microbiota composition in 109 NAFLD patients randomly allocated to six lifestyle intervention groups: Low Glycemic Index Mediterranean Diet (LGIMD), aerobic activity program (ATFIS_1), combined activity program (ATFIS_2), LGIMD plus ATFIS_1 or ATFIS2 and Control Diet based on CREA-AN (INRAN). The relative abundances of microbial taxa at all taxonomic levels were explored in all the intervention groups and used to cluster samples based on a statistical approach, relying both on the discriminant analysis of principal components (DAPCs) and on a linear regression model. Our analyses reveal important differences when physical activity and the Mediterranean diet are merged as treatment and allow us to identify the most statistically significant taxa linked with liver protection. These findings agree with the decreased 'controlled attenuation parameter' (CAP) detected in the LGIMD-ATFIS_1 group, measured using FibroScan®. In conclusion, our study demonstrates the synergistic effect of lifestyle interventions (diet and/or physical activity programs) on the gut microbiota composition in NAFLD patients.Entities:
Keywords: Mediterranean diet; NAFLD; gut microbiota; lifestyle intervention; physical activity
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35565740 PMCID: PMC9101735 DOI: 10.3390/nu14091773
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 6.706
Anthropometric and clinical features of the NAFLD patients.
| Working Arms | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | INRAN | LGIMD | ATFIS_1 | ATFIS_2 | LGIMD-ATFIS_1 | LGIMD-ATFIS_2 |
| # NAFLD patients | 17 | 19 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 19 |
| Age (years) * | 56.03 (8.37) | 56.76 (9.18) | 52.32 (7.46) | 53.38 (6.27) | 50.54 (10.86) | 48.44 (11.54) |
| Age categories (years) ** | ||||||
| <45 | 2 (9%) | 2 (9%) | 3 (13%) | 3 (13%) | 6 (26%) | 7 (30%) |
| 45–54 | 5 (14%) | 3 (8%) | 10 (28%) | 9 (25%) | 4 (11%) | 5 (14%) |
| 55–59 | 4 (17%) | 7 (30%) | 4 (17%) | 2 (9%) | 3 (13%) | 3 (13%) |
| ≥60 | 6 (23%) | 6 (23%) | 2 (8%) | 4 (15%) | 4 (15%) | 4 (15%) |
| Gender ** | ||||||
| Female | 4 (8%) | 9 (18%) | 8 (16%) | 10 (20%) | 6 (12%) | 13 (26%) |
| Male | 13 (23%) | 8 (14%) | 11 (19%) | 8 (14%) | 11 (19%) | 6 (11%) |
| BMI * | 33.45 (4.37) | 33.50 (6.44) | 30.54 (4.11) | 31.81 (3.46) | 32.99 (5.19) | 32.28 (4.38) |
| BMI categories ** | ||||||
| 25–29 | 3 (9%) | 8 (24%) | 7 (21%) | 6 (18%) | 5 (15%) | 4 (12%) |
| 30–35 | 10 (20%) | 4 (8%) | 10 (20%) | 10 (20%) | 8 (16%) | 9 (18%) |
| >35 | 4 (19%) | 6 (29%) | 2 (10%) | 2 (10%) | 4 (19%) | 3 (14%) |
| CAP (dB/m) * | 348.35 (38.34) | 341.34 (20.24) | 325.46 (19.83) | 332.71 (28.66) | 323.76 (33.20) | 328.22 (40.32) |
| Grading of liver Steatosis ** | ||||||
| Absent | 0 (0%) | 1 (13%) | 2 (25%) | 3 (38%) | 1 (13%) | 1 (13%) |
| Mild | 1 (6%) | 5 (28%) | 3 (17%) | 3 (17%) | 3 (17%) | 3 (17%) |
| Moderate | 10 (21%) | 5 (11%) | 9 (19%) | 9 (19%) | 7 (15%) | 7 (15%) |
| Severe | 6 (18%) | 6 (18%) | 5 (15%) | 3 (9%) | 6 (18%) | 8 (24%) |
| Tryglicerides (mmol/L) * | 1.18 (0.62) | 1.79 (1.13) | 1.81 (0.78) | 1.63 (0.97) | 1.94 (1.38) | 1.50 (0.72) |
| Total cholesterol (mmol/L) * | 4.83 (0.84) | 5.11 (1.10) | 5.10 (0.64) | 5.67 (0.95) | 5.43 (1.34) | 5.58 (1.23) |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) * | 1.12 (0.30) | 1.08 (0.31) | 1.04 (0.22) | 1.31 (0.30) | 1.16 (0.31) | 1.17 (0.31) |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 3.46 (0.73) | 2.75 (0.93) | 3.38 (0.65) | 3.82 (0.57) | 3.09 (1.05) | 3.75 (1.13) |
| AST (μkat/L) * | 0.42 (0.09) | 0.43 (0.13) | 0.42 (0.12) | 0.44 (0.12) | 0.45 (0.16) | 0.43 (0.13) |
| ALT (μkat/L) * | 0.48 (0.15) | 0.53 (0.27) | 0.48 (0.22) | 0.55 (0.29) | 0.53 (0.19) | 0.55 (0.33) |
| Glucose (mmol/L) * | 5.43 (1.40) | 5.99 (1.39) | 6.09 (2.11) | 5.45 (0.52) | 5.11 (0.44) | 5.59 (1.65) |
| HOMA index * | 4.81 (7.37) | 4.67 (6.05) | 3.69 (2.75) | 2.92 (1.76) | 3.72 (1.65) | 2.99 (1.89) |
Control Diet based on CREA-AN guidelines (INRAN); Low Glycemic Index Mediterranean Diet (LGIMD); Physical Activity 1 based on the Aerobic Activity Program (ATFIS_1): Physical Activity 2 based on the combination of Aerobic Activity Program and Resistance Training (ATFIS_2); combination of LGIMD and ATFIS1 or ATFIS2 physical activity program (LGIMD-ATFIS_1; LGIMD-ATFIS_2); BMI: Body Mass Index; CAP: Controlled Attenuation Parameter; HDL-C: High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol; LDL-C: Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol; AST: Aspartate Aminotransferase; and ALT: Alanine Aminotransferase. Cells showing the subjects’ characteristics contain * Mean (±SD). ** Number; percentages calculated per rows.
Figure 1DAPC analysis based on the adegenet R package: (A) DAPC plot obtained by superimposing samples on the prior group assignment with the screeplot of used discriminant analysis (DA) eigenvalues (two out of five in grey colour) reported in the bottom right of the panel; (B) proportions of successful reassignments: heat colors represent membership probabilities (red = 1, white = 0, orange/yellow = non completely succeeded reassignment) and blue crosses represent the DAPC prior cluster; and (C) loading DAPC plot reporting the genera that best highlighted the cluster separation. The variables that contributed the most to the DAPC loading plot are over the 0.01 threshold.
Figure 2Maaslin2 associations in the single versus combined intervention groups. Aerobic physical activity (ATFIS_1), Mediterranean diet (LGIMD), and the combined LGIMD-ATFIS_1 intervention groups were compared by means of the linear regression model (Maaslin2), determining the multivariable associations between the phenotypes. Taxa relative abundances were reported on the Y axis.
Figure 3Maaslin2 model, single versus combined groups. Grouped single (ATFIS_1 and LGIMD) interventions were compared with the combined (LGIMD-ATFIS_1) group, setting the allocation to each of the three groups as the random effect in the linear model.