4.6 Article

Diet during Pregnancy and Infancy and the Infant Intestinal Microbiome

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 203, 期 -, 页码 47-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.07.066

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01HL091528, R01HL108818, K23AI110522, 5T32AI007306-30]
  2. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL091528, T32HL007427] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [T32AI007306] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To determine the association between diet during pregnancy and infancy, including breastfeeding vs formula feeding. solid food introduction, and the infant intestinal microbiome. Study design Infants participating in the Vitamin D Antenatal Asthma Reduction Trial were included in this study (n = 323). Maternal and infant diets were assessed by questionnaire. Infant stool samples were collected at age 3-6 months. Stool sequencing was performed using the Roche 454 platform. Analyses were stratified by race/ethnicity. Results Breastfeeding, compared with formula feeding, was independently associated with infant intestinal microbial diversity. Breastfeeding also had the most consistent associations with individual taxa that have been previously linked to early-life diet and health outcomes (eg, Bifidobacterium). Maternal diet during pregnancy and solid food introduction were less associated with the infant gut microbiome than breastfeeding status. We found evidence of a possible interaction between breastfeeding and child race/ethnicity on microbial composition. Conclusions Breastfeeding vs formula feeding is the dietary factor that is most consistently independently associated with the infant intestinal microbiome. The relationship between breastfeeding status and intestinal microbiome composition varies by child race/ethnicity. Future studies will need to investigate factors, including genomic factors. which may influence the response of the microbiome to diet.

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