4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

The relative contribution of diet and genotype to bone development

Journal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NUTRITION SOCIETY
Volume 60, Issue 1, Pages 45-52

Publisher

C A B INTERNATIONAL
DOI: 10.1079/PNS200072

Keywords

osteoporosis; bone mineral mass; bone mineral density; candidate genes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present review addresses the relative contribution of diet and genotype to variability in human bone growth and mineralisation in the context of the aetiology of osteoporosis. Heritability studies indicate that 60-70 % of the variability in bone mineral mass or bone mineral density (BMD) can be accounted for by genetic variation. Cross-trait analyses suggest that a proportion of this variation reflects genetic influences on bone and body size, such as height and lean body mass. Candidate-gene studies have demonstrated associations between several genetic polymorphisms and bone mineral mass but, as yet, genotype determinations have proved unhelpful in identifying individuals at increased risk of osteoporosis. Variations in diet and other environmental factors contribute 30-40 % to total phenotypic variance in bone mineral mass or BMD. Correlations between intakes of individual nutrients and BMD have been reported, but these relationships are subject to confounding due to size. However, no specific dietary factor has been identified from prospective and twin studies as making a significant contribution to environmental variability in BMD or bone loss. This finding may reflect the difficulties in quantifying environmental exposures, both current and over a lifetime. In addition, the influence of diet on bone health may depend on the genotype of the individual. Optimisation of nutrition and lifestyle remains an attractive strategy for the reduction of fracture risk, but more research is required to fully define optimal dietary requirements.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available