暂无摘要。

Background: There is a significant lack of consistency used to determine the scientific validity of nutrigenetic research. The aims of this study were to examine existing frameworks used for determining scientific validity in nutrition and/or genetics and to determine which framework would be most appropriate to evaluate scientific validity in nutrigenetics in the future. Methods: A systematic review (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021261948) was conducted up until July 2021 using Medline, Embase, and Web of Science, with articles screened in duplicate. Gray literature searches were also conducted (June-July 2021), and reference lists of two relevant review articles were screened. Included articles provided the complete methods for a framework that has been used to evaluate scientific validity in nutrition and/or genetics. Articles were excluded if they provided a framework for evaluating health services/systems more broadly. Citing articles of the included articles were then screened in Google Scholar to determine if the framework had been used in nutrition or genetics, or both; frameworks that had not were excluded. Summary tables were piloted in duplicate and revised accordingly prior to synthesizing all included articles. Frameworks were critically appraised for their applicability to nutrigenetic scientific validity assessment using a predetermined categorization matrix, which included key factors deemed important by an expert panel for assessing scientific validity in nutrigenetics. Results: Upon screening 3,931 articles, a total of 49 articles representing 41 total frameworks, were included in the final analysis (19 used in genetics, 9 used in nutrition, and 13 used in both). Factors deemed important for evaluating nutrigenetic evidence related to study design and quality, generalizability, directness, consistency, precision, confounding, effect size, biological plausibility, publication/funding bias, allele and nutrient dose-response, and summary levels of evidence. Frameworks varied in the components of their scientific validity assessment, with most assessing study quality. Consideration of biological plausibility was more common in frameworks used in genetics. Dose-response effects were rarely considered. Two included frameworks incorporated all but one predetermined key factor important for nutrigenetic scientific validity assessment. Discussion/Conclusions: A single existing framework was highlighted as optimal for the rigorous evaluation of scientific validity in nutritional genomics, and minor modifications are proposed to strengthen it further. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=261948, PROSPERO [CRD42021261948].

Eggs are protein-rich, nutrient-dense, and contain bioactive ingredients that have been shown to modify gene expression and impact health. To understand the effects of egg consumption on tissue-specific mRNA and microRNA expression, we examined the role of whole egg consumption (20% protein, w/w) on differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between rat (n = 12) transcriptomes in the prefrontal cortex (PFC), liver, kidney, and visceral adipose tissue (VAT). Principal component analysis with hierarchical clustering was used to examine transcriptome profiles between dietary treatment groups. We performed Gene Ontology and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway analysis as well as genetic network and disease enrichment analysis to examine which metabolic pathways were the most predominantly altered in each tissue. Overall, our data demonstrates that whole egg consumption for 2 weeks modified the expression of 52 genes in the PFC, 22 genes in VAT, and two genes in the liver (adj p < 0.05). Additionally, 16 miRNAs were found to be differentially regulated in the PFC, VAT, and liver, but none survived multiple testing correction. The main pathways influenced by WE consumption were glutathione metabolism in VAT and cholesterol biosynthesis in the PFC. These data highlight key pathways that may be involved in diseases and are impacted by acute consumption of a diet containing whole eggs.

The purposes of the present review are to examine the emergence of nutrigenetics/nutrigenomics, to analyze the relationship between nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics, to explore the impact of nutrigenetics/nutrigenomics on healthcare with respect to noncommunicable diseases, and to discuss the challenges facing the implementation of nutrigenetics/nutrigenomics within healthcare.
Nutrigenetics/nutrigenomics is certainly a thriving specialty given the sharp increase of publications over the last two decades. The relationship between nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics is proposed as complementary. The current clinical and research literature supports the significant impact nutrigenetics/nutrigenomics has on treating and preventing noncommunicable diseases. Although several challenges face the implementation of nutrigenetics/nutrigenomics into healthcare, they are not insurmountable. Nutrigenetics/nutrigenomics plays an important role not only in treating diseases and illnesses but also in promoting health and wellness through both basic and clinical research; and it is critical for the future of both personalized nutrition and precision healthcare.

To identify and profile training courses available to dietitians and nutritionists in the area of nutritional genomics. Genetic technology is progressing quickly, leading to increased public interest and requests from the public for personalised nutrition advice based on genetic background. Tertiary courses often lack specific curriculum in nutritional genomics, preventing graduates from discussing confidently with their clients the relationships between genetics, nutrition and health. This has increased the demand for professional development in this field.
The search strategy was intended to replicate real-life practice. Google and snowball searches were conducted using terms related to education and nutritional genomics. Results included online or face-to-face courses in any country providing content on nutritional genomics. One-off courses and those courses no longer accessible were excluded. A descriptive analysis of characteristics of courses was undertaken, reporting on mode of delivery, cost, duration, content, qualification awarded, target audience and affiliations.
In total, 37 courses varying in duration, content and cost were identified: 4 postgraduate university degrees, 5 university course units, 4 recurring face-to-face workshops, 15 online short courses, 8 pre-recorded presentations and 1 service offering regular live webinars. Affiliations with food and pharmaceutical industry (e.g. genetic testing companies), professional organisations and research/education institutes were observed.
Training courses identified were predominantly delivered online, enabling nutrition professionals worldwide to upskill in nutritional genomics and personalised nutrition. Additional courses exist. Those seeking training should scrutinise and compare cost, duration, mode, content and affiliations of course providers to ensure learning needs are met.