4.8 Article

Fat, fibre and cancer risk in African Americans and rural Africans

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms7342

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 CA135379]
  2. CTRC [UL1 RR024153, UL1TR000005]
  3. National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre based at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London
  4. Spinoza Award of the Netherlands Organization (de Vos) for Scientific Research
  5. ERC Advanced of the European Research Council [250172]
  6. Academy of Finland [141140, 256950]
  7. Academy of Medical Sciences
  8. Academy of Medical Sciences (AMS) [AMS-SGCL8-Kinross] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Academy of Finland (AKA) [256950, 256950] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rates of colon cancer are much higher in African Americans (65: 100,000) than in rural South Africans (<5: 100,000). The higher rates are associated with higher animal protein and fat, and lower fibre consumption, higher colonic secondary bile acids, lower colonic short-chain fatty acid quantities and higher mucosal proliferative biomarkers of cancer risk in otherwise healthy middle-aged volunteers. Here we investigate further the role of fat and fibre in this association. We performed 2-week food exchanges in subjects from the same populations, where African Americans were fed a high-fibre, low-fat African-style diet and rural Africans a high-fat, low-fibre western-style diet, under close supervision. In comparison with their usual diets, the food changes resulted in remarkable reciprocal changes in mucosal biomarkers of cancer risk and in aspects of the microbiota and metabolome known to affect cancer risk, best illustrated by increased saccharolytic fermentation and butyrogenesis, and suppressed secondary bile acid synthesis in the African Americans.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available