4.7 Article

Plasma metabolite biomarkers of boiled and filtered coffee intake and their association with type 2 diabetes risk

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 287, 期 4, 页码 405-421

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/joim.13009

关键词

coffee intake; dietary biomarker; epidemiology; metabolomics; type 2 diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Habitual coffee intake has been associated with a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D), but few studies used biomarkers to reflect intake and investigated different coffee brews, that is boiled and filtered, separately. Objectives To identify plasma metabolites associated with boiled or filtered coffee intake and to examine their association with T2D risk in Swedish adults. Methods In a case-control study nested within the Vasterbotten Intervention Programme, baseline plasma samples from 421 case-control pairs and samples from a subset of 149 pairs at a 10-year follow-up were analysed using untargeted LC-MS metabolomics. We identified metabolites associated with food frequency questionnaires (FFQ)-estimated coffee intake and assessed odds ratios of T2D. Results In total, 24 and 32 metabolites were associated with boiled or filtered coffee intake. We determined robust metabolite panels for highly specific prediction of boiled or filtered coffee. We observed an inverse association between the metabolite panel of filtered coffee and T2D risk. No association with T2D was observed for the panel of boiled coffee intake. Similar results were observed for FFQ-estimated coffee intake. Conclusions We identified plasma metabolites specifically associated with boiled or filtered coffee intake, which might be used as selective biomarkers. Our study supports a protective role of habitual intake of filtered coffee on T2D development. The lack of association for boiled coffee intake might be due to the lack of a protective effect of boiled coffee or due to the limited number of boiled coffee consumers in this population, but it warrants further investigation.

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

4.7
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