4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Dietary and genetic probes of atherogenic dyslipidemia

Journal

ARTERIOSCLEROSIS THROMBOSIS AND VASCULAR BIOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 11, Pages 2265-2272

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000186365.73973.f0

Keywords

lipoproteins; diet; genetics; genetic polymorphisms

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [U01 HL66728, U01 HL18574] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A goal of dietary management of cardiovascular disease risk in patients with obesity and metabolic syndrome is improvement in the atherogenic dyslipidemia comprising elevated triglyceride, reduced high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and increased numbers of small, dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles. Individuals with a genetically influenced trait characterized by a high proportion of small, dense LDL ( phenotype B) respond to a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet with greater reduction of LDL cholesterol, apoprotein B, and mid-sized LDL2 particles than unaffected subjects (phenotype A). In contrast, in phenotype A subjects there is a reciprocal shift from large LDL1 to small LDL3 such that a high proportion convert to phenotype B. There is evidence for heritable effects on these diet-induced subclass changes and for the involvement of specific genes. For example, a haplotype of the APOA5 gene associated with increased plasma triglyceride and small, dense LDL predicts greater diet-induced reduction of LDL2, a haplotype-specific effect that is strongly correlated with both increased VLDL precursors and LDL4 products. Understanding of such diet-genotype interactions may help to elucidate mechanisms that are responsible for phenotype B and for its differential dietary responsiveness. This information may also ultimately help in identifying those individuals who are most likely to achieve cardiovascular risk benefit from specific dietary interventions.

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