4.7 Article

LC-QTOF/MS metabolomic profiles in human plasma after a 5-week high dietary fiber intake

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 405, 期 14, 页码 4799-4809

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-013-6874-5

关键词

LC-QTOF/MS; Metabolomics; Oat; Rye; Sugar beet; Dietary fiber

资金

  1. Nordic Centre of Excellence SYSDIET (Systems biology in controlled dietary interventions and cohort studies) [070014]
  2. OPUS (Optimal wellbeing, development and health for Danish children through a healthy New Nordic Diet)
  3. Nordea Foundation
  4. European Network of Excellence NuGO (The European Nutrigenomics Organization)
  5. EU Network of Excellence ECNIS2 (Environmental Cancer Risk, Nutrition and Individual Susceptibility)
  6. VINNOVA grant [2004-02285]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective was to investigate the alterations of plasma metabolome profiles to identify exposure and effect markers of dietary fiber intake. Subjects (n = 25) aged 58.6 (1.1) years (mean and SD) with a body mass index of 26.6 (0.5) kg/m(2) were given a high fiber (HF) and a low fiber (LF) diet, in a 5-week randomized controlled crossover intervention. The HF diet consisted of oat bran, rye bran, and sugar beet fiber incorporated into test food products, whereas the LF diet was made of equivalent food products to the HF diet, but without adding fibers. Blood plasma samples were collected at the start and end of each intervention period and analyzed by LC-QTOF/MS. In total, 6 features in positive mode and 14 features in negative mode were significantly different between the HF and the LF diet (p < 0.01, q < 0.05). Two markers, 2,6-dihydroxybenzoic acid and 2-aminophenol sulfate, were increased after HF diet, along with a tentatively identified saponin derived from oat avenacosides. The untargeted metabolomics approach enabled the identification of two new markers of dietary fiber intake in human plasma. Further studies will be needed to verify if these markers could serve as compliance markers of fiber intake.

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