4.7 Article

Proteomic profiles before and during weight loss: Results from randomized trial of dietary intervention

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-64636-7

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [1R01DK091831, 1R01DK106236, P30DK116074]
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [1R01HL135313]
  3. Stanford Clinical and Translational Science Award [NIH UL1 TR001085]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Inflammatory and cardiovascular biomarkers have been associated with obesity, but little is known about how they change upon dietary intervention and concomitant weight loss. Further, protein biomarkers might be useful for predicting weight loss in overweight and obese individuals. We performed secondary analyses in the Diet Intervention Examining The Factors Interacting with Treatment Success (DIETFITS) randomized intervention trial that included healthy 609 adults (18-50 years old) with BMI 28-40 kg/m(2), to evaluate associations between circulating protein biomarkers and BMI at baseline, during a weight loss diet intervention, and to assess predictive potential of baseline blood proteins on weight loss. We analyzed 263 plasma proteins at baseline and 6 months into the intervention using the Olink Proteomics CVD II, CVD III and Inflammation arrays. BMI was assessed at baseline, after 3 and 6 months of dietary intervention. At baseline, 102 of the examined inflammatory and cardiovascular biomarkers were associated with BMI (>90% with successful replication in 1,584 overweight/obese individuals from a community-based cohort study) and 130 tracked with weight loss shedding light into the pathophysiology of obesity. However, out of 263 proteins analyzed at baseline, only fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF-21) predicted weight loss, and none helped individualize dietary assignment.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available