4.7 Article

Cumulative consumption of branched-chain amino acids and incidence of type 2 diabetes

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 45, 期 5, 页码 1482-1492

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyw143

关键词

Diet; branched-chain amino acids; type 2 diabetes; cohort study

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [P01 CA87969, UM1 CA186107, R01 CA49449, UM1 CA176726, UM1 CA167552, R01 DK091718, HL71981, DK58845, HL60712]
  2. United States - Israel Binational Science Foundation [2011036]
  3. American Heart Association Scientist Development Award
  4. Boston Obesity Nutrition Research Center [DK46200]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Plasma branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs, including leucine, isoleucine and valine) were recently related to risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Dietary intake is the only source of BCAAs; however, little is known about whether habitual dietary intake of BCAAs affects risk of T2D. Methods: We assessed associations between cumulative consumption of BCAAs and risk of T2D among participants from three prospective cohorts: the Nurses' Health Study (NHS; followed from 1980 to 2012); NHS II (followed from 1991 to 2011); and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS; followed from 1986 to 2010). Results: We documented 16 097 incident T2D events during up to 32 years of follow-up. After adjustment for demographics and traditional risk factors, higher total BCAA intake was associated with an increased risk of T2D in men and women. In the meta-analysis of all cohorts, comparing participants in the highest quintile with those in the lowest quintile of intake, hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were for leucine 1.13 (1.07-1.19), for isoleucine 1.13 (1.07-1.19) and for valine 1.11 (1.05-1.17) (all P for trend < 0.001). In a healthy subsample, higher dietary BCAAs were significantly associated with higher plasma levels of these amino acids (P for trend = 0.01). Conclusions: Our data suggest that high consumption of BCAAs is associated with an increased risk of T2D.

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