4.6 Article

Products of the Colonic Microbiota Mediate the Effects of Diet on Colon Cancer Risk

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 139, 期 11, 页码 2044-2048

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/jn.109.104380

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Institute of Cancer Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is estimated that most colon cancers can be attributed to dietary causes, We have hypothesized that diet influences the health of the colonic mucosa through interaction with the microbiota and that it is the milieu interior that regulates mucosal proliferation and therefore cancer risk. To validate this further, we compared colonic contents from healthy 50- to 65-y-old people from populations with high and low risk, specifically low risk Native Africans (cancer incidence <1:100,000; n = 17), high risk African Americans (risk 65:100,000; n = 17), and Caucasian Americans (risk 50:100,000; n = 18). Americans typically consume a high-animal protein and -fat diet, whereas Africans consume a staple diet of maize meal, rich in resistant starch and low in animal products. Following overnight fasting, rapid colonic evacuation was performed with 2 L polyethylene glycol. Total colonic evacuants were analyzed for SCFA, vitamins, nitrogen, and minerals. Total SCFA and butyrate were significantly higher in Native Africans than in both American groups. Colonic folate and biotin content, measured by Lactobacillus rhamnoses and Lactobacillus plantarum ATCC 8014 bioassay, respectively, exceeded normal daily dietary intakes. Compared with Africans, calcium and iron contents were significantly higher in Caucasian Americans and zinc content was significantly higher in African Americans, but nitrogen content did not differ among the 3 groups. In conclusion, the results support our hypothesis that the microbiota mediates the effect diet has on colon cancer risk by their generation of butyrate, folate, and biotin, molecules known to play a key role in the regulation of epithelial proliferation. J. Nutr. 139: 2044-2048, 2009.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据