Systematic review2024Open access

Genetic Variability Impacts Genotoxic and Transcriptome Responses in the Human Colon after the Consumption of Processed Red Meat Products and Those with Added Phytochemical Extracts

DeBenedictis JN, Baars E, Ochoteco-Asensio J, van Breda SG, de Kok TM

Nutrients · 5 citations

Review labels

Mechanisms only

Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.

How it was studied

Design
Systematic review (indexed by PubMed)
Studied in
People
Main outcome
Mechanisms only
Intake measured by
Not stated

Who paid for it

Funding
Independent funding
Government
FP7 EU-project PHYTOME

Based on 1 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.

Publication

Published
2024-01-31 · Nutrients · vol. 16 · issue 3 · p. 425
Publisher
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Cited
8 citations · more than 90% of similar papers · 2.8× the field average
References
90 works
Access
Open access (journal) · CC-BY
Research areas
Nutrition, Genetics, and Disease · Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Glutathione Transferases and Polymorphisms
Keywords
Biology, Genotype, Genetics, Transcriptome, Allele, Single-nucleotide polymorphism, Genetic variation, Wild type, Genetic variability, Gene, Gene expression
MeSH
colon, humans, dna damage, nitroso compounds, dna adducts, meat, meat products, transcriptome, red meat

5 authors

From NL

  • Julia Nicole DeBenedictisMaastricht University
  • Esther BaarsMaastricht University
  • Juan Ochoteco AsensioMaastricht University
  • Simone G. van Breda · correspondingMaastricht University
  • Theo M. C. M. de KokMaastricht University

Abstract

The PHYTOME study investigated the effect of consuming processed meat products on outcomes related to colorectal cancer risk without testing the impact of genetic variability on these responses. This research aims to elucidate the genetic impact on apparent total N-nitroso compound (ATNC) excretion, colonic DNA adduct formation, ex vivo-induced DNA damage, and gene expression changes in colon biopsies of healthy participants. Through a systematic literature review, candidate polymorphisms were selected and then detected using TaqMan and PCR analysis. The effect of genotype on study outcomes was determined via a linear mixed model and analysis of variance. Machine learning was used to evaluate relative allele importance concerning genotoxic responses, which established a ranking of the most protective alleles and a combination of genotypes (gene scores). Participants were grouped by GSTM1 genotype and differentially expressed genes (DEGs), and overrepresented biological pathways were compared between groups. Stratifying participants by ten relevant genes revealed significant variations in outcome responses. After consumption of processed red meat, variations in NQO1 and COMT impacted responses in ATNC levels (µmol/L) (+9.56 for wildtype vs. heterozygous) and DNA adduct levels (pg/µg DNA) (+1.26 for variant vs. wildtype and +0.43 for variant vs. heterozygous), respectively. After phytochemicals were added to the meat, GSTM1 variation impacted changes in DNA adduct levels (-6.12 for deletion vs. wildtype). The gene scores correlated with these responses and DEGs were identified by GSTM1 genotype. The altered pathways specific to the GSTM1 wildtype group included 'metabolism', 'cell cycle', 'vitamin D receptor', and 'metabolism of water-soluble vitamins and co-factors'. Genotype impacted both the potential genotoxicity of processed red meat and the efficacy of protective phytochemical extracts.

Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).

Community trust

Loading…

How much do you trust this study's findings?

0 · not at all10 · completely

Comments

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Something wrong here?

Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Educational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.