| Literature DB >> 35990344 |
Simone Baldi1, Monica Dinu1, Giuditta Pagliai1, Barbara Colombini1, Leandro Di Gloria2, Lavinia Curini1, Marco Pallecchi3, Matteo Ramazzotti2, Gianluca Bartolucci3, Stefano Benedettelli4, Amedeo Amedei1,5, Francesco Sofi1,6.
Abstract
Background and aim: In recent years, many studies have suggested that ancient wheat products might have beneficial effects on cardiometabolic risk profile, but little is known about their effect on gut microbiota (GM). The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether a replacement diet with pasta made from ancient wheat (AD) could influence the GM composition and its metabolites' production compared to a replacement diet with pasta made from modern wheat (CD).Entities:
Keywords: MCFAs; SCFAs; ancient wheat; gut microbiota; modern wheat; pasta
Year: 2022 PMID: 35990344 PMCID: PMC9386222 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.971666
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
FIGURE 1Workflow of the crossover intervention study.
FIGURE 2Box plots reporting alpha diversity indices (Observed ASV richness, Shannon index, Pielou’s evenness) pre- and post-AD (A) and pre- and post-CD (B). Lines link paired samples and statistical differences were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. AD, ancient-wheat diet; CD, control-wheat diet.
FIGURE 3Principal coordinates analysis (PCoA), according to the Bray-Curtis beta-diversity metric, of pre- and post-AD samples (A) and pre- and post-CD samples (B). Results of the permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) are also shown based on the first two coordinates. AD, ancient-wheat diet; CD, control-wheat diet.
FIGURE 4Box plots showing significant differentially abundant genera among pre- and post-AD (A) and pre- and post-CD (B) samples. AD, ancient-wheat diet; CD, control-wheat diet.
SCFAs and MCFAs variation according to the dietary interventions.
| pre-AD | post-AD | P-value | pre-CD | post-CD | P-value | |
|
| ||||||
| Acetic | 52.38 (7.10) | 52.74 (8.18) | 0.018 | 52.17 (10.32) | 51.01 (15.79) | 0.965 |
| Propionic | 13.80 (17.24) | 15.83 (3.05) | 0.204 | 15.08 (4.29) | 13.84 (4.53) | 0.295 |
| Butyric | 12.19 (5.33) | 14.91 (4.31) | 0.762 | 19.06 (9.04) | 13.03 (5.54) | 0.018 |
| Isobutyric | 1.73 (1.46) | 2.25 (0.85) | 0.016 | 1.47 (1.33) | 2.52 (1.51) | 0.032 |
| 2-Methylbutyric | 1.23 (1.19) | 2.02 (0.79) | 0.023 | 0.99 (1.31) | 2.14 (1.36) | 0.016 |
| Isovaleric | 1.42 (1.19) | 1.74 (0.86) | 0.008 | 1.02 (1.13) | 2.03 (1.28) | 0.032 |
| Valeric | 2.71 (0.82) | 2.99 (0.69) | 0.076 | 2.38 (1.41) | 2.89 (2.02) | 0.023 |
|
| ||||||
| Hexanoic | 0.76 (1.19) | 1.03 (1.19) | 0.762 | 1.16 (1.54) | 0.39 (0.65) | 0.026 |
| Isohexanoic | 0.02 (0.02) | 0.02 (0.02) | 1.000 | 0.02 (0.04) | 0.01 (0.01) | 0.050 |
| Heptanoic | 0.01 (0.15) | 0.12 (0.21) | 0.314 | 0.08 (0.14) | 0.05 (0.10) | 0.102 |
| Octanoic | 0.01 (0.01) | 0.01 (0.02) | 0.623 | 0.01 (0.01) | 4.3e-3 (0.01) | 0.295 |
| Non-anoic | 2.7e-3 (3.9e-3) | 4.1e-3 (6.2e-3) | 1.000 | 3.5e-3 (1.4e-3) | 3.7e-3 (6.9e-3) | 0.227 |
| Decanoic | 2.6e-3 (3.7e-3) | 1.8e-3 (1.8e-3) | 0.285 | 3.5e-3 (5.6e-3) | 2.6e-3 (2.4e-3) | 0.239 |
| Dodecanoic | 6.1e-3 (0.01) | 5.1e-3 (8.4e-3) | 0.466 | 4.9e-3 (0.01) | 0.01 (0.01) | 0.930 |
Data are presented as median percentage (interquartile range, IQR). AD, ancient-wheat diet; CD, control-wheat diet; SCFAs, short chain fatty acids; MCFAs, medium chain fatty acids.
FIGURE 5Statistically significant different predicted pathway with LDA score > 2.0 between pre- and post-CD. LDA, linear discriminant analysis; CD, control wheat diet.