Estimation of chicken intake using metabolomics derived markers

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorYin, Xiaofei
dc.contributor.authorGibbons, Helena
dc.contributor.authorRundle, Milena
dc.contributor.authorMcNulty, Breige A.
dc.contributor.authorNugent, Anne P.
dc.contributor.authorGibney, Michael J.
dc.contributor.authorBrennan, Lorraine
dc.contributor.authoret al.
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-19T14:54:23Z
dc.date.available2018-04-24T01:00:13Z-
dc.date.copyright2017 Oxford University Pressen
dc.date.issued2017-10-01
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Nutritionen
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10197/9340
dc.description.abstractBackground: Improved assessment of meat intake using metabolomics derived markers can provide objective data and could be helpful in clarifying proposed associations between meat intake and health.Objective: The objective was to identify novel markers of chicken intake using a metabolomics approach, and use markers to determine intake in an independent cohort. Methods: Ten participants (age, 62 y; BMI, 28.25 Kg/m2) in NutriTech Food Intake Study (NCT01684917) consumed increased amounts of chicken from 88 to 290 g/day over three weeks. Urine and blood samples were analyzed by NMR and MS, respectively. Multivariate data analysis was performed to identify markers associated with chicken intake. A calibration curve was built based on dose response association using NutriTech data. Bland and Altman analysis evaluated the agreement between reported and calculated chicken intake in National Adult Nutrition Survey (NANS) cohort. Results: Multivariate data analysis of postprandial and fasting urine samples collected in NutriTech revealed good discrimination between high (290 g/day) and low (88 g/day)  chicken intakes. Urinary metabolite profiles showed differences in metabolite levels between low and high chicken intakes. Examining metabolite profiles revealed guanidoacetate significantly increased from 1.47 to 3.66 mmol/L following increasing chicken intake from 88 to 290 g/day (P < 0.01). Using a calibration curve developed from NutriTech study, chicken intake was calculated in NANS, where chicken consumers had higher guanidoacetate excretion (0.70 mmol/L) than non-consumers (0.47 mmol/L) (P < 0.01). Bland and Altman analysis revealed good agreement between reported and calculated intakes with a bias of -30.2g/day. Plasma metabolite analysis demonstrated that 3-methylhistidine (3-Meth-His) was a more suitable indicator of chicken intake compared with 1-methylhistidine (1-Meth-His). Conclusions: Guanidoacetate was successfully identified and confirmed as a marker of chicken intake, and importantly its measurement in fasting urine samples could be used to determine chicken intake in a free-living population.en
dc.description.sponsorshipDepartment of Agriculture, Food and the Marineen
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Commission - Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)en
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Research Councilen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen
dc.rightsThis is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in The Journal of Nutrition following peer review. The version of record Xiaofei Yin, Helena Gibbons, Milena Rundle, Gary Frost, Breige A McNulty, Anne P Nugent, Janette Walton, Albert Flynn, Michael J Gibney, Lorraine Brennan; Estimation of Chicken Intake by Adults Using Metabolomics-Derived Markers, The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 147, Issue 10, 1 October 2017, Pages 1850–1857, is available online at: https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.117.252197en
dc.subjectMetabolomicsen
dc.subjectDietary markersen
dc.subjectGuanidoacetateen
dc.subjectEstimated chicken intakeen
dc.subject3-methylhistidineen
dc.titleEstimation of chicken intake using metabolomics derived markersen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.internal.authorcontactotherlorraine.brennan@ucd.ie
dc.statusPeer revieweden
dc.identifier.volume147en
dc.identifier.issue10en
dc.identifier.startpage1850en
dc.identifier.endpage1857en
dc.identifier.doi10.3945/jn.117.252197-
dc.neeo.contributorYin|Xiaofei|aut|-
dc.neeo.contributorGibbons|Helena|aut|-
dc.neeo.contributorRundle|Milena|aut|-
dc.neeo.contributorMcNulty|Breige A.|aut|-
dc.neeo.contributorNugent|Anne P.|aut|-
dc.neeo.contributorGibney|Michael J.|aut|-
dc.neeo.contributorBrennan|Lorraine|aut|-
dc.neeo.contributoret al.||aut|-
dc.description.othersponsorshipNutriTechen
dc.internal.rmsid833387455
dc.date.updated2017-12-05T10:49:19Z
dc.rights.licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ie/en
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextopen-
Appears in Collections:Institute of Food and Health Research Collection
Agriculture and Food Science Research Collection
Files in This Item:
 File SizeFormat
DownloadYin_et_al_2017.pdf768.3 kBAdobe PDF
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations 20

13
Last Week
0
Last month
1
checked on Sep 12, 2020

Page view(s)

1,217
Last Week
2
Last month
20
checked on Jun 30, 2022

Download(s) 50

393
checked on Jun 30, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


If you are a publisher or author and have copyright concerns for any item, please email research.repository@ucd.ie and the item will be withdrawn immediately. The author or person responsible for depositing the article will be contacted within one business day.