Journal of Food Science and Nutrition

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +1 (202) 780-3397

Commentary - Journal of Food Science and Nutrition (2024) Volume 7, Issue 4

Nutritional genomics: How genetic variability influences nutrient metabolism and dietary needs.

David Jenkins *

Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, Canada

*Corresponding Author:
David Jenkins
Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, Canada
E-mail: d.jenkins@utoronto.ca

Received: 25-Jul-2024, Manuscript No. AAJFSN-24-144020; Editor assigned: 27-Jul-2024, PreQC No. AAJFSN-24-144020; Reviewed:10-Aug-2024, QC No. AAJFSN-24-144020; Revised:16-Aug-2024, Manuscript No. AAJFSN-24-144020 (R); Published:22-Aug-2024, DOI: 10.35841/ aajfsn-7.4.248

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Food Science and Nutrition

Introduction

Nutritional genomics, also known as nutrigenomics, explores how genetic variability influences nutrient metabolism and dietary needs. This field merges the study of genetics with nutrition to understand how individual genetic differences affect responses to dietary components. By analyzing the interactions between genes and nutrients, researchers aim to provide personalized dietary recommendations that optimize health and prevent disease

 

Genetic variability plays a significant role in how nutrients are absorbed, metabolized, and utilized by the body. Individual differences in genetic makeup can affect the efficiency of nutrient absorption and metabolism. For example, variations in genes responsible for enzyme production can impact the digestion and assimilation of vitamins and minerals. A well-known example is the genetic variability in the MTHFR gene, which affects folate metabolism. Individuals with certain MTHFR variants may have reduced ability to convert folate into its active form, which can influence their dietary requirements for folate and their susceptibility to conditions like neural tube defects and cardiovascular diseases [1,2].

Additionally, genetic variations can influence the body's response to dietary fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. For instance, variations in the FTO gene have been associated with differences in fat metabolism and body weight regulation. People with specific FTO gene variants may be more prone to obesity and may respond differently to dietary interventions aimed at weight management. Similarly, genetic differences in the APOE gene, which is involved in lipid metabolism, can affect an individual's risk for cardiovascular diseases based on their dietary fat intake [3,4].

Nutritional genomics also examines how genetic variations impact the body's response to different dietary patterns and nutritional supplements. For instance, some people have genetic variations that influence their response to high or low-carbohydrate diets. Research has shown that individuals with specific genotypes may experience different effects on blood sugar levels and insulin sensitivity when following these diets. This variability underscores the importance of personalized nutrition approaches that consider genetic predispositions when recommending dietary changes [5,6].

The field of nutrigenomics has also explored the impact of genetic variations on the metabolism of micronutrients, such as vitamins and minerals. For example, genetic differences in the vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene can affect an individual's response to vitamin D supplementation. People with certain VDR gene variants may require higher doses of vitamin D to achieve optimal blood levels compared to those with other variants. Similarly, genetic variations in the SLC22A4 gene, which is involved in the transport of selenium, can influence selenium status and its impact on health outcomes [7,8].

Beyond individual health, nutrigenomics has potential implications for public health and disease prevention. By identifying genetic markers associated with nutrient metabolism and dietary responses, researchers can develop population-based guidelines that address specific genetic predispositions. For example, genetic testing could identify individuals at higher risk for diet-related diseases and guide targeted nutritional interventions. This approach could enhance the effectiveness of public health strategies aimed at preventing chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and certain types of cancer [9,10].

Conclusion

Nutritional genomics offers a promising approach to personalized nutrition by examining how genetic variability influences nutrient metabolism and dietary needs. By understanding the interactions between genes and nutrients, researchers can develop more tailored dietary recommendations that optimize health and prevent disease. As the field continues to evolve, it is likely to provide increasingly precise and individualized nutritional guidance, ultimately enhancing public health outcomes and advancing the science of nutrition.

References

  1. Rice AS, McMahon SB. Peripheral nerve injury caused by injection needles used in regional anaesthesia: influence of bevel configuration, studied in a rat model. Br J Anaesth.1992;69(5):433-8.

    2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  2. Hadzic A, Dilberovic F, Shah S, et al. Combination of intraneural injection and high injection pressure leads to fascicular injury and neurologic deficits in dogs. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2004;29(5):417-23.

    3. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Benumof JL. Permanent loss of cervical spinal cord function associated with interscalene block performed under general anesthesia. Anesth. 2000; 93:1541-4.

    4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  4. Cohen JM, Gray AT. Functional deficits after intraneural injection during interscalene block. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010;35(4):397-9.

    5. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Liu SS, YaDeau JT, Shaw PM, et al. Incidence of unintentional intraneural injection and postoperative neurological complications with ultrasound?guided interscalene and supraclavicular nerve blocks. Anesth. 2011;66(3):168-74.

    6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  6. Steinfeldt T, Poeschl S, Nimphius W, et al. Forced needle advancement during needle-nerve contact in a porcine model: histological outcome. Anesth Analg. 2011;113(2):417-20.

    7. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  7. Ansbro FP. A method of continuous brachial plexus block. Am J Surg. 1946;71(6):716-22.

    8. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  8. Dekkey J, Schboeder C, Bueciiel D. Continuous brachial plexus block. J Amer Soci Anesth. 1969;30(3):332.

    9. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  9. Sarnoff SJ, Sarnoff LC. Prolonged peripheral nerve block by means of indwelling plastic catheter. Treatment of hiccup (Note on the electrical localization of peripheral nerve). J Amer Soci Anesth. 1951;12(3);270-275.

    10. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  10. Liu SS, YaDeau JT, Shaw PM, et al. Incidence of unintentional intraneural injection and postoperative neurological complications with ultrasound?guided interscalene and supraclavicular nerve blocks. Anesth. 2011;66(3):168-74.

    11. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App