Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T12:35:28.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individualized nutritional recommendations: do we have the measurements needed to assess risk and make dietary recommendations?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2007

Lenore Arab
Lenore Arab*
Affiliation:
School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA
*
Corresponding author: Professor Lenore Arab, fax 1 805 447 1984, email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Is the information currently available to adjust nutritional recommendations and develop individualized nutrition? No. There is not even the information needed for setting dietary recommendations with confidence now at the group level. Will it be available soon? The answer to this question depends on the drive and will of the nutritional community, the success in recruiting funding to the area, the education of nutritionists and the spawning of great ideas and approaches. The emerging tools of genomics, proteomics and metabolomics are enabling the in-depth study of relationships between diet, genetics and metabolism. The advent of technologies can be compared with the discovery of the microscope and the new dimensions of scientific visualization enabled by that discovery. Nutritionists stand at the crest of new waves of data that can be generated, and new methods for their digestion will be required. To date, the study of dietary requirements has been based largely on a black box approach. Subjects are supplemented or depleted and clinical outcomes are observed. Few recommendations are based on metabolic outcomes. Metabolomics and nutrigenomics promise tools with which recommendations can be refined to meet individual requirements and the potential of individualized nutrition can be explored. As yet, these tools are not being widely applied in nutritional research and are rarely being applied by nutritionists. The result is often interesting research that is frequently nutritionally flawed, resulting in inappropriate conclusions. Nutritional education is needed to put nutritionists at the forefront of the development of applications for these technologies, creating a generation of nutrigenomicists. A new generation of nutritionists should be working interdisciplinarily with geneticists, molecular biologists and bioinformaticians in the development of research strategies. The present paper reviews the current status of nutrigenomic research, the current controversies and limitations, and developments needed to advance nutrigenomics and explore fully the promise of individualized nutritional recommendations.

Keywords

Dietary recommendationsMetabolomicsNutrigenomicsIndividualized nutrition
Type
Meeting Report
Information
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , February 2004 , pp. 167 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2004

References

Campos, H, D'Agostino, M & Ordovas, JM (2002) Gene–diet interactions and plasma lipoproteins: role of apolipoprotein E and habitual saturated fat intake. Genetic Epidemiology 20, 117–128.Google Scholar
Cortese, C & Motti, C (2001) MTHFR gene polymorphism, homocysteine and cardiovascular disease. Public Health Nutrition 4, 493–497.Google Scholar
Dong, Y, Ganter, HE, Stewart, C & Ip, C (2002) Identification of molecular targets associated with selenium-induced growth inhibition in human breast cells using cDNA microarrays. Cancer Research 62, 708–714.Google Scholar
Grierson, B (2003) What your genes want you to eat – The new science of nutrigenomics wants to create the ultimate personal menu. New York Times Magazine 4 May issue 76–77.Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine Food and Nutrition Board (2000) Dietary Reference Intakes, Applications in Dietary Assessment. A Report of the Subcommittee on Interpretation and Uses of Dietary Reference Intakes and the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Frosst, P, Blom, HJ, Milos, R, Goyette, P, Sheppard, CA & Matthews, RG et al. (1995) A candidate genetic risk factor for vascular disease: a common mutation in methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase. Nature Genetics 10, 111–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, M, Conry-Cantilena, C, Wang, Y, Welch, RW, Washko, PW, Dhariwal, KR, Park, JB, Lazarev, A, Graumlich, JF, King, J & Cantilena, LR (1996) Vitamin C pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers: Evidence for a recommended dietary allowance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 93, 3704–3709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathers, JC (2004) What can we expect to learn from genomics? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 63, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mueller, M & Kersten, S (2003) Nutrigenomics: goals and strategies. Nature Reviews Genetics 4, 315–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Cancer Institute (2003) Nutritional Genomics and Proteomics in Cancer Preventionl>. Proceedings of a conference. September 5–6, 2002, Bethesda, MD, USA. Journal of Nutrition 133 Suppl., 2399S–2504S..+Proceedings+of+a+conference.+September+5–6,+2002,+Bethesda,+MD,+USA.+Journal+of+Nutrition+133+Suppl.,+2399S–2504S.>Google Scholar
National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel (2001) Phenylketonuria; Screening and Management. Pediatrics 108, 972–982.Google Scholar
Pennisi, E (2003) A low number wins the genesweep pool. Science 300 1484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petricoin, EF, Ardekani, AM, Hitt, BA, Levine, PJ, Fusaro, VA, Steinberg, SM, Mills, GB, Simone, C, Fishman, DA, Kohn, EC & Liotta, LA (2002) Use of proteomic patterns in serum to identify ovarian cancer. Lancet 359, 572–577.Google Scholar